There are currently three "constants" pages in the wiki:

https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Nouns
https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Constants
https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Guides/Constants

I have updated the Guides/Constants page, as it already had a segment
on 'based' constants.

I am not sure about the Vocabulary/Constants page -- it looks like it
needs a lot of work. Perhaps a redirect might be a better option?

The Vocabulary/Nouns page covers a larger suite of topics and is
probably not the right place for this kind of detail.

Thanks,

--
Raul


On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 8:59 AM Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I was just about to say that, Henry.
>
> Ancillary pages are intended to be linked from multiple NuVoc pages. I
> thought there might be a need for a new one to address the matter of this
> thread. But [[Vocabulary/Constants]]
>  https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Constants
> seems to be its natural home for now.
>
> Note that the last section:
>  https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Constants#Further_reading
> promises to answer Raul's question, but links to a missing page …or is it a
> placeholder?
>
> Some NuVoc pages link into Pipermail, as a temporary measure, until someone
> has the time to draw threads together.
> For forum members who haven't used Pipermail, the link to the present
> thread is:
>  https://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2021-October/038701.html
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 13:44, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Constants
> >
> > Henry Rich
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 2:03 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I guess the question is: which wiki page should this be documented in?
> > >
> > > (If it's not already -- I guess another question is what should I
> > > search on to attempt to find such documentation?)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Raul
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 5:44 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You might have a point, but I don't think it's worth taking the risk of
> > > > breaking existing code to make the change.  If you want a float, add a
> > > > decimal point.
> > > >
> > > > Numbers close to IMAX are always troublesome because of tolerance.
> > > >
> > > > Henry Rich
> > > >
> > > > On 10/23/2021 4:13 AM, ethiejiesa via General wrote:
> > > > > The issue I find surprising is that integer literals in the range
> > > > > 16b8000000000000000 to 16b80000000000004ff, i.e. INT_MAX+1 to
> > > INT_MAX+1024, all
> > > > > parse into the integer precision 9223372036854775807, i.e. INT_MAX.
> > > This is not
> > > > > the same thing as (<:2^63) which has floating precision.
> > > > >
> > > > > My expectation was that non-exact representations for (2^63x) and
> > > above---
> > > > > e.g. 16b8000000000000000---would parse into floating precision
> > numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > As it stands, this means that integer precision values equal to
> > > > > 16b7fffffffffffffff cannot be trusted and must be handled specially,
> > as
> > > > > demonstrated nicely in Raul's examples below.
> > > > >
> > > > > Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> 16b8000000000000401 cannot be exactly represented.  There is a band
> > > of floats near 2^63 that are converted to (<:2^63).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Henry Rich
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 10/23/2021 1:42 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > >>> I do not see why I should expect these to be the same number:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>      2^.92233720368547768323
> > > > >>> 66.3219
> > > > >>>      2^.16b8000000000000401
> > > > >>> 63
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> One is larger than can be represented using a 64 bit integer, and
> > so
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>      datatype 92233720368547768323
> > > > >>> floating
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That said, I do think that there's a problem with the other one.
> > That
> > > > >>> one is also larger than can be represented using a 64 bit signed
> > > > >>> integer:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>      (2^63x)-16b8000000000000401
> > > > >>> 1
> > > > >>>      (2^63x)-16b8000000000000000
> > > > >>> 1
> > > > >>>      (2^63x)-16b7fffffffffffffff
> > > > >>> 1
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So there's a certain range of numbers here which get treated ...
> > > oddly.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > For information about J forums see
> > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > https://www.avg.com
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to