From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e749bdf6fe4253aa
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@gecm.com>
Subject: Re: Why no new posts ?
Date: 2000/11/15
Message-ID: <3a125206$1@pull.gecm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 693824277
References: <t13sno9p7fcv4c@corp.supernews.com>
 <002001c04ec8$27db8ee0$b0375140@Fudge>
X-Trace: 15 Nov 2000 09:06:14 GMT, superted.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Date: 2000-11-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Your 'mod' theory, although fitting the evidence, is incorrect.

Your implementation probably defines Float as 'digits 6' meaning
that it will guarantee up to the first 6 significant digits to be correct.
If you require better than this try Long_Float (and Ada.
Long_Float_Text_Io) which will probably be 'digits 15' (though I
can't be sure as you haven't told us what environment you are using).
Look in the specification of package Standard. If Long_Float is also
'digits 6' then try defining your own floating point type with an
appropriate number of digits (e.g. digits 9).

N.B. this is a _minimum_ guarantee, the actual machine
representation may be better.

If you come from a 'C' background think of
Float as 'float'
Long_Float as 'double'
Integer as 'int'
Long_Integer as 'long int'.

I'm sure this is probably heresy to some, but if it helps... :-)


JF Harrison <madscientist@colulus.net> wrote in message
news:002001c04ec8$27db8ee0$b0375140@Fudge...
> Want some posts?
> How about some beginner level questions from my end.
>
> One in this post and another following.
>
> First off:
> I got a Very strange error in dividing real numbers.  I divided 12345670.0
> by 100.0 and got 123456.70313 as the answer!  I have certainly able to
have
> flawless divisions but also isolated some code that will repeatably
> demonstrate this.  I still dont know what is wrong with the code; perhaps
> you can tell me.