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: 1997/12/04
Message-ID: <dewar.881289301@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 295349878
References: <dewar.881039951@merv>
 <gwinn-0212971958200001@dh5055115.res.ray.com> <dewar.881120537@merv>
 <3485A850.3A92@gsg.eds.com> <mheaney-ya023680000312972133130001@news.ni.net>
 <348716B2.5050@gsg.eds.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 881289515 11361 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-12-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Seymour says

<<I'd have to double check whether it's been fixed in Ada 95, but it used
to be that you had to define fixed point types with a range slightly
larger than the intended range in order to ensure that the arithmetic
model mapped properly into the problem domain.
>>

Semour is referring to the permission, present in Ada 83 and Ada 95 to
shrink end-points by delta, This allows the convenience of such
declarations as

   type x is delta 2 ** -31 range -1.0 .. +1.0;

whereas if this freedom did not exist, one would have to say

   type x is delta 2 ** -31 range -1.0 .. +1.0 - 2 ** 31;

(assuming a 2's complement machine ...)

Of course in practice if you write a declaration like

   type x is delta 0.25 range -10.0 .. +10.0;

the endpoints *will* be included.

This was simply a choice of which case to require the explicit fudging
in, and does indeed cause a fair amount of confusion.