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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,2a34b7ad6c6a0774 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "(see below)" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:21:57 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1jn1a4o.1dfllwo1uin3imN%csampson@inetworld.net> <1jn36d6.se2f0g1edjjnyN%csampson@inetworld.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net h9SRZTbt4xIFDQYZhcTwMQ3rrgCNIInSgPMCtPi4o08SjsERja Cancel-Lock: sha1:bjFbGtczpJ0FwkbUPbIWK/N3kvA= User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001 Thread-Topic: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers Thread-Index: Acs6XALiZ8Pl+7Y3Uk+EAsUPeuhnyA== Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13191 Date: 2010-08-12T21:21:57+01:00 List-Id: On 12/08/2010 20:23, in article m28w4bfxdy.fsf@pushface.org, "Simon Wright" wrote: > csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) writes: > >> Simon Wright wrote: >> >>> csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) writes: >>> >>>> I then overloaded "+" and "-" for (Bearing, Turn_Angle) arguments >>>> and Bearing return value. In those functions is where the mod 360 >>>> occurred. (Actually, mod 360.0, as it were.) >>> >>> Depending on what is doing the turning, in our application that would >>> in some cases have to be mod 720.0 ... >> >> I'm puzzled. Unless you're very careful, intermediate calculations >> could result in a quasi-Bearing of more than 360 degrees but I'm pretty >> sure most programmers on my project would have been surprised to see a >> real bearing of 360 degrees or more. > > A tracker radar like this one (hope the link will work) might be able to > turn through an unlimited number of revolutions, or (with a more > mechanical design) there might be a limit on how many revs it could > manage. So if it's currently pointing 10 degrees to starboard, how much > further can it go before having to unwind? > > I agree that this is Training, not Bearing, of course. > > http://www.artisan3d.co.uk/static/bae_cimg_radar_Fi_latestReleased_bae_cimg_ra > dar_Fi_Web.jpg I think quantum mechanics codes would require angles mod 720 for spin 1/2 particles. 8-) -- Bill Findlay chez blueyonder.co.uk