Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so i guess the point is... long double gives you more accuracy than double. but neither is "good enough" when you really need a LOT of bits. :)I think the point can be easily explained this way:
1. Using GMP, you can say that Bill Gates earned USD57.23412335455Billion
in 2005, and you are sure of all the digits in the figure.
2. Using long double, you can say that Bill Gates earned USD57.234Billion in
2005, and you are satisfied with that many digits, because Gates' earnings
to the million, is good enough for you.
3. Using double, you can say that Bill Gates earned USD57.2Billion, and that's
good enough for you to conclude that Gates is a billionaire, without using GMP.
Of course, these are not the limits of double, long double, and GMP,
but this example just tries to point out the differences. Also Gates
probably did not earn that much in one year.
PMana
P.S. Ang kulit mo talaga Orly! :) Patawarin mo na kami, dahil
"Merry Christmas" season naman.
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
