Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:53:07 +0000
Richard Tobin said:
In article <ltSdnT3DNLGY9xvbnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@xxxxxx>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
#define QFLT_EPSILON 1.09003771904865842969737513593110651 ... E-106
You have the same bug as last time. No standard-conforming
implementation may define QFLT_EPSILON in the standard header
<float.h>, as I pointed out to you earlier this week.
Jacon already described how to suppress this definition if required.
Either it's a standard header (as he claims), or it isn't. If it's a
standard header, it cannot contain QFLT_EPSILON. If it contains
QFLT_EPSILON, it can't be a standard header.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Mark McIntyre
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- References:
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Richard Tobin
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Next by Date: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Next by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|