> Yeah, look - we're arguing already. :) lol Asking not arguing.. anyway my email was slow getting posted to the list
> But, I remember, to be consistent, shouldn't > the second datatype be converted to the first > before the operation takes place ? > So, > 100 - 50% == 50 ; as first stated I am strongly reminded of my early schooldays when our Math teacher relentelssly brainwashed [initialized] us about percentages for whole term: "Always ask: 'percent of WHAT?'", he said. And he was right.. I can never listen to the news or advertising or marketing wonks wihout thinking of that man.. In which case the assumptions must be clearly stated: >> 100 - 50% == 50 That says that the percent is OF the preceding value. So what does this next one mean? >> 50% + 100 ??? ...If is truly REBOListic then % will have some suprising head tail first next behaviors.. Meanwhile some other to ponder >> (100 - 50%) * 10% == 5 >> 100 * 50% == 5000% >> 50% * 100 == ?? > I suppose > 50% - 100 == -50% ; ? or should be illegal? No its an Enron hysteresis function. Negative growth.. The policicians love to ovecome it. ..unless 50% already has some internal series value it is indexing ?? > > >> taxrate: to-percent [$8.25 / $100] > > == 8.25% > Uh oh, so to-percent involves an implicit multiplication > by 100, then? Looks nice, though. yeah aint it? ./Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
