Andrew Reilly <arei...@bigpond.net.au> writes: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:47:56 +0200 > Michael Sperber <sper...@deinprogramm.de> wrote: > >> No, it isn't. You may want to re-read what I wrote. > > Do you have another explanation for those recent developments in > the world of floating point arithmetic? > > I accept that I might have mis-interpreted your post. As I said, > I think that side is wrong, and I don't care to argue the point. > Just thought that ".. everyone .. has long accepted binary > floating point as .. adequate for doing financial > calculations..." needed a counterpoint.
Again, you might want to re-read what I wrote. In particular, you replaced some important stuff by ellipses. Here's the full quote: >> Most everyone in that community has long accepted binary >> floating-point as completely adequate for doing financial >> calculations for complex products. In particular, "everyone in that community" is not the same as "everyone", and "financial calculations" is not the same as "financial calculations for complex products.". -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
