Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: Ron Shepard <ron-shepard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:53:20 -0500
In article <1184572698.921310.254810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Terence <tbwright@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If a real value very close to zero has to be expressed in a limited
number of fractional digits, but these digits are all zeroes after the
decimal point, then the appropriate sign should be prefixed to the
values to indicate which side of absolute zero the values lies.
This is the basis of the problems. There is a way to designate -0.0
in this way (by using the sign bit), but there is no way to
designate a +0.0 in this way that is distinct from the actual 0.0.
If, in hardware, there were a way to designate and differentiate
-0.0, 0.0, and +0.0, then there would be no problems, everyone would
know what the three values mean.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: James Giles
- Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: Gordon Sande
- Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- References:
- On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: Jerry DeLisle
- Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: robert . corbett
- Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: robert . corbett
- Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- From: Terence
- On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- Prev by Date: Re: Upgrading XP machine to run gcc
- Next by Date: Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- Previous by thread: Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- Next by thread: Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign
- Index(es):