Re: double money
From: CBFalconer (cbfalconer_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 04/15/04
- Next message: Stephen Sprunk: "Re: char*& and char* ???"
- Previous message: CBFalconer: "Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?"
- In reply to: Keith Thompson: "Re: double money"
- Next in thread: P.J. Plauger: "Re: double money"
- Reply: P.J. Plauger: "Re: double money"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:58:45 GMT
Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Dan Pop wrote:
>>
>>> Floating point types can use *any* integer base greater or equal
>>> to two.
>>
... snip ...
>
> But there's a good chance that a new form of decimal floating-point
> may catch on in the not too distant future. It uses 10 bits for
> each 3 decimal digits, so the mantissa representation is nearly
> (1000/1024) as efficient as pure binary.
That is not the point. Normalizing decimal values requires
multiply/divide by 10, so the eventual range, at best, is from 1.0
to 10.0- (9.999...999) for some value of the exponent. For base 2
the corresponding range is from 1.0 to 2.0-. Besides the loss of
a bit position the maximum possible percentage deviation is higher
by 5 for the decimal organization. The extra bit makes that a
factor of 10.
If the normalization is by factors of 1000, as suggested by the 3
dec. digits above, the situation is worse.
So you need a good reason to use any such decimal organization.
-- Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses. - James Rhodes.
- Next message: Stephen Sprunk: "Re: char*& and char* ???"
- Previous message: CBFalconer: "Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?"
- In reply to: Keith Thompson: "Re: double money"
- Next in thread: P.J. Plauger: "Re: double money"
- Reply: P.J. Plauger: "Re: double money"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]