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,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3b4bed4f74b8ac49 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: johnherro@aol.com (John Herro) Subject: Re: GNAT messages and the not operator (pitfall alert!) Date: 1996/10/30 Message-ID: <5589ls$e8n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 193689520 sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com references: <3277C5F1.3F4E@cci.de> organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I wrote: > if X**2 + 3.0*X + 2.0 < 100.0 then ... "Dr. Peter E. Obermayer" wrote: > Better (X + 3.0)*X + 2.0 < 100.0 Agreed. And if you have a higher degree polynomial to compute, there's even more reason, from the standpoint of efficiency, to use successive addition and multiplication (with nested parentheses), rather than raising X to several different powers. Mine was just an artificial example of an expression that doesn't need parentheses to clarify. One COULD argue that the less efficient expression is a little easier to read than the more efficient one, but I don't think the difference in readability is very great. - John Herro Software Innovations Technology http://members.aol.com/AdaTutor ftp://members.aol.com/AdaTutor ----- ANSWER: J.C. Penney QUESTION: Give the initials of the President who authorized the Susan B. Anthony dollar, and its approximate worth on the international market.