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: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com>
Subject: Re: SI Units Solicitation - Upgrade from comments
Date: 1997/08/21
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.970821183728.24493B-100000@shellx.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 267777565
References: <33FBD411.3B4A@erols.com> <dewar.872181519@merv>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On 21 Aug 1997, Robert Dewar wrote:
> I guess this is really a complaint at the P1446 standard (which I do not
> have a copy of), but I really dislike the use of the term Real, as opposed
> to Float, in programming languages. It just serves to feed confusion of the
> kind that has been so evident in the separate thread on guidelines for use
> of floating-point arithmetic.

I emphatically agree that "Real" should not be used as the name for the 
floating point type of a language.

Even the term "Real" itself for real numbers is suspicious. All numbers are 
really imaginary, unless you believe Kronecker in which case integers
aren't. :-) :-)

-- Brian