Jonathan Polley wrote: > ... > > Aside from removing unreferenced variables, the bulk of the changes were > in the area of the use of floating-point. Since C does all passing of > floats as doubles, and does all math in double, could we have a mandate > that all floating-point valued be double? I can see it being a pain for > the programmer to always add the 'f' at the end of float constants, just > go get around the compiler warnings.
No: C (since about 1995) and C++ do not pass all floats as doubles and do not do all (floating) math in double. If the result is going to be converted back to float, the compiler is allowed to to the calculation in float precision. Adding "f" to constants is a pain, I agree. Some compilers can be told to choose the appropriate type for unsuffixed constants in this situation. > While on the subject of floating-point, I will get on one of my soap boxes. > Taking 5/2.0 may not always yield the result you intend. I would > suggest using 5.0/2.0 or, if you really want the integer result, floor(5.0/ > 2.0) and ceil(5.0/2.0). The C/C++ programmer will intend the result to be 2.5. This is defined by the "standard arithmetic conversion" rules of C/C++. What do you think might happen instead? I highly recommend Stroustrup's book The C++ Programming Language. It explains everything. > Another personal nit is the lack of a leading > zero on numbers < 1.0 (I prefer seeing 0.5 rather than .5). Is there a > general preference for FlightGear? I prefer the leading zero too, but I don't think there is a strong reason to persuade everyone to use it. - Julian _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
