[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: integer arithmetics
From: |
Jaroslav Hajek |
Subject: |
Re: integer arithmetics |
Date: |
Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:37:34 +0200 |
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:31 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 2-Oct-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>
> | I'm not sure. I can easily imagine people complaining that 2*a for a
> | of int64 type isn't working. But I can maybe play with it a while
> | longer.
>
> Can we detect and warn about loss of precision? Or make that an
> error? In that case, I guess the range of values handled would be
> smaller, but at least we could handle the most common cases and also
> not produce incorrect results.
That would mean another flag... I'd rather avoid it because I'm still
hoping I'll figure out a complete solution soon. But I agree with
putting off this changeset until I sort this out.
> But maybe that is worse than not
> having the feature?
>
> jwe
>
--
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz
- Re: integer arithmetics, John W. Eaton, 2008/10/01
- Re: integer arithmetics, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/10/01
- Re: integer arithmetics, John W. Eaton, 2008/10/01
- Re: integer arithmetics, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/10/02
- Re: integer arithmetics, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/10/02
- Re: integer arithmetics, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/10/02
- Re: integer arithmetics, John W. Eaton, 2008/10/02
- Re: integer arithmetics, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/10/02
- Re: integer arithmetics, John W. Eaton, 2008/10/02
- Re: integer arithmetics,
Jaroslav Hajek <=
- Re: integer arithmetics, John W. Eaton, 2008/10/02
- Re: integer arithmetics, John W. Eaton, 2008/10/02
- Re: integer arithmetics, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/10/02