Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:04:13 +0100
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:01:56 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
jacob navia said:
I have told you thousand times that this can be disabled
by using -ansic.
You don't seem to understand my point, which is that you are describing
<float.h> as a *standard header*, and yet you *also* describe it as
containing QFLT_EPSILON. It can't *both* be a standard header *and*
contain QFLT_EPSILON at the same time.
Polemic, polemic without end, but you did not contribute anything
to this discussion.
Jacob, in this instance I agree with you but I also recommend you
ignore Richard, he's being stupid. He was wrong earlier in this
thread, and he's now doing _exactly_ what he frequently complains
about others doing, viz changing his argument to cover his tracks
instead of admitting his error.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
.
- References:
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: jacob navia
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Next by Date: Re: Casts
- Previous by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Next by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|