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,ec68713820981fe9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mfb@mbunix.mitre.org (Michael F Brenner) Subject: Re: SI Units Solicitation - Upgrade from comments Date: 1997/08/22 Message-ID: <5tk5mu$9f1@top.mitre.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 267920107 References: <33FBD411.3B4A@erols.com> <33FD19B8.5458@erols.com> Summary: Use type approximates and exacts Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford Mass. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: William A Whitaker asked: > Give me a better name. Float is out since it is pre-empted by Ada. We > are simulating ATLAS whlch uses the term "DECIMAL", which I believe is > also pre-empted, and further is a poor discription for a binary floating > point number. It is hard to come up with a better set of names than those used originally in the design of the DOD-1 language (later renamed Ada). Those two types were approximates and exacts, reflecting their true nature, use, and limitations. Use of these names includes many grammatical features which help avoid mistakes, such as: (1) they are both plural noun phrases representing sets of nouns so they fit into English-language sentences, (2) they clearly identify when things are being counted with precision log N versus when things are being measured approximately cut off at an arbitrary precision, (3) they clearly distinguish between algorithms whose complexity changes when you are permitted to use approximate numbers or to expect approximate answers, (4) they are not trite rehashes of FORTRAN or Pascal words, (5) they represent some of the most important thoughts that went into the original design of Ada, and (6) they give an acceptable alternative to using predefined types.