Re: Another question about fixed point types.

["Peter C. Chapin" <chapinp@acm.org>]

On 2010-08-29 05:02, Phil Thornley wrote:

> With that definition, the largest value that 'Small is allowed to take
> is 2**-10, and the upper bound is between 2**21 and 2**22, so the
> minimum number of bits for the base type will be 33 (which may or may
> not be significant to you).

Using 64 bit integers for computations isn't too scary if it is
necessary for handling my required precision. I'd prefer not to have to
store the values in 64 bits if I can avoid it. It sounds like I might
have to take a little more control over the representation of certain
numeric types than I might ideally like. It's still a little early to be
sure (meaning I'm not going to worry about it until performance
measurements indicate that it's actually a problem). That said, I do
want to at least understand the issues.

> (and if this is SPARK, there's no base type assertion for fixed point
> types...)

I hope this doesn't sound like a stupid question but what do you mean by
"base type assertion." Do you mean 'for Julian_Day'Base use ...'?

Peter