On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 12:32:26 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
In times of lore, BCD floats were very common. The Sharp Pocket
Computer used a BCD float format and writing machine code on
them confronts one with the format. The TI-99/4A home computer
also used a BCD float format in its Basic
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 00:35:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:13:45AM +, Era Scarecrow via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 06:20:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> I don't think there's a way to change how the FPU works --
> the hardware is
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:13:45AM +, Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 06:20:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> > I don't think there's a way to change how the FPU works -- the
> > hardware is coded that way and can't be changed. You'd have to
> > build
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 05:38:56 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 03:57:25 UTC, Basile B wrote:
6.251 has no perfect double representation. It's real value is:
I almost wonder if a BCD, fixed length or alternative for
floating point should be an option... Either
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 04:06:23 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 03:57:25 UTC, Basile B wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 03:50:14 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
[...]
6.251 has no perfect double representation. It's real value is:
6.215099962483343551867E0
Hence
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 05:38:56AM +, Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 03:57:25 UTC, Basile B wrote:
> > 6.251 has no perfect double representation. It's real value is:
>
> I almost wonder if a BCD, fixed length or alternative for floating
> point
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 03:57:25 UTC, Basile B wrote:
6.251 has no perfect double representation. It's real value is:
I almost wonder if a BCD, fixed length or alternative for
floating point should be an option... Either library, or a hook
to change how the FPU works since doubles are
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 03:57:25 UTC, Basile B wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 03:50:14 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
[...]
6.251 has no perfect double representation. It's real value is:
6.215099962483343551867E0
Hence when you cast to ulong after the product by 10_000, this
is
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 03:50:14 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Consider this snippet:
void main()
{
import std.stdio;
auto a = 6.2151;
auto b = a * 1;
auto c = cast(ulong)b;
writeln("a: ", typeof(a).stringof, " ", a);
writeln("b: ", typeof(b).stringof, " ", b);
Consider this snippet:
void main()
{
import std.stdio;
auto a = 6.2151;
auto b = a * 1;
auto c = cast(ulong)b;
writeln("a: ", typeof(a).stringof, " ", a);
writeln("b: ", typeof(b).stringof, " ", b);
writeln("c: ", typeof(c).stringof, " ", c);
auto x =
10 matches
Mail list logo
