David Ashley <[email protected]> wrote on 27/02/2009 15:43:46:
> And I have NEVER agreed with the readability argument. My programs > have way too many instances where the readability limit places far > too many limitations on my math calculations. I much prefer precise > results over the surprise factor of loosing digits unexpectedly. > Therefore I am constantly placing a NUMERIC DIGITS 14 at various > places in my programs. Whether you agree with it or not, that was the reasoning, honest! :-) Remember, Rexx was written for people who were not assumed to be mathematicians. For most people, an 8-digit calculator is precise enough. A third option would be to say 'yes make a language change' (which would be in all implementations). But on thinking about it, if doing that (with potential for breakage) it would also make sense to change the arithmetic to be IEEE 754 .. and hence a sensible default digits would be 16 (and limited exponent range to match). The OPTIONS instruction/directive approach at least means no breakage, which is generally a Good Thing. Mike Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
