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: 107079,183ebe04e93f0506 X-Google-Attributes: gid107079,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,183ebe04e93f0506 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: fixed point vs floating point Date: 1997/11/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 292744847 Distribution: inet References: <65846t$4vq$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> <65c58j$1302@mean.stat.purdue.edu> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 880518924 4522 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,sci.math.num-analysis Date: 1997-11-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Joe said <> Actually that's probably a recipe for such misunderstanding. If you come to the fixed-point semantics in Ada with preconceptions, you can often be surprised. For example, people do not realize that delta does not specify the small, or they don't understand the issue with end points fudged by delta, or they don't understand the role of universal fixed in multiplication and division, or they don't undersatnd the accuracy requiremets etc. So it would not surprise me *at all* if this "damage" were self inflicted. Using fixed-point in Ada is not like using scaled binary in Fortran!