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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <f3c0cf89-6993-4b83-b4fe-8a920ce23a14@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <f208e17c-0511-4397-a13a-39a3da6eef5e@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <wccr5i985py.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <i3nbgd$a3e$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1jn1a4o.1dfllwo1uin3imN%csampson@inetworld.net>
 <m262zhyogo.fsf@pushface.org> <1jn36d6.se2f0g1edjjnyN%csampson@inetworld.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:36:35 +0200
Message-ID: <f793uvozalxa.1k5ysrqdh35jv.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 2010 10:36:34 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: b5904dd0.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC==3b3=KjLm\\f8j24CD<3lPMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[a]LNHib7JT[[6LHn;2LCV^[<mhadbfdU[n5EHfbAkUkVnI7h7BQJ^;[
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13162
Date: 2010-08-12T10:36:34+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:54:52 -0700, Charles H. Sampson wrote:

> Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> 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.

Maybe it was rhumbs? Just could not resist, sorry (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de