Re: compilation problem with module function interface definition

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> James Giles wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> My own preprocessor treats KINDless literals as type RATIONAL.
>> Mixed mode between RATIONAL and REAL gives a REAL result
>> of the appropriate precision. So, 1.23 is *EXACTLY* 123/100,
>> which is then converted to REAL of the same precision as X when
>> the above assignement is done. (The actual conversion is done
>> in the preprocessor in this case since the argument to the
>> conversion is a statically known.)
>
> Maybe in a few years decimal floating point will get popular, and
> this problem will go away. That is, 1.23 will be exactly 1.23,
> single or double precision. There are people working on an
> efficient float decimal system.

But then what will be the rule for mixed mode between binary
floating point and decimal floating point? Not that it's a bad idea,
but it's something that will have to be addressed.

--
J. Giles

"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C. A. R. Hoare


.