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: 103376,183ebe04e93f0506
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: fixed point vs floating point
Date: 1997/12/03
Message-ID: <dewar.881200598@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 295032403
References: <dewar.881039951@merv>
 <gwinn-0212971958200001@dh5055115.res.ray.com> <dewar.881120537@merv>
 <3485A850.3A92@gsg.eds.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 881200841 12744 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-12-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Seymour J says

<<BTW, very few real programs have constructs like
constant+constant/constant; usually at least one term will be a
variable. Use default precision in the statement

        A = 1 + B/3;

and the "problem" disappears?
>>

Maybe and maybe not. Depending on the scale and precision of B, you may
prefer to write

        A = 1 + B/03;

which has different semantics. I find changing the number of leading zeroes
in a decimal constant to be a non-intuitive way of controlling the scale
and precision of the intermediate result, and I think it is FAR safer to
make the programmer think explicitly about what scale and precision is
required, define a type that encapsulates this decision, and write

        A := 1 + Inttype (B / 3.0);

Yes, it requires more work from the programmer, but only work that really
is quite necessary. Fixed-point requires manual scaling, which is why
people prefer floating-point. To think that fixed-point semantics can
be effectively automated so it really functions as a poor man's floating-
point where everything is done right automatically is, I am afraid, naive.