Mark Thornton wrote:
The more interesting question is whether those limits should remain
different or should they be brought into alignment with Java Double
(and add +-infinite and NaN as well).
It would probably be good to fully support the java Double datatype, but
see DERBY-3290 for some con
Rick Hillegas wrote:
"DOUBLE value ranges:
* Smallest DOUBLE value: -1.79769E+308
* Largest DOUBLE value: 1.79769E+308
* Smallest positive DOUBLE value: 2.225E-307
* Largest negative DOUBLE value: -2.225E-307
These limits are different from the java.lang.DoubleJava type limits."
Th
Hi Hong,
The max and min values of the Derby double datatype are not the max and
min values of the Java double type. The Derby behavior is documented in
the Derby Reference Guide in the section titled "DOUBLE PRECISION data
type". Here's what that section says:
"DOUBLE value ranges:
* Sm
