Have you considered the possibility of going to J64? Then the number would be an integer instead of floating point. Another possibility, specify the number as an extended integer. That would probably take more space, but would avoid fuzz and the limits of floating point.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Alex Rufon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Unfortunately, the use of the 200801010000 as 01/01/2008 00:00 is > tightly embedded into our system that yanking it out is no mean feat. :( > > > Thanks anyway. :) > > r/Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Burke > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:50 PM > To: General forum > Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] NUB Problem > > Alex Rufon wrote: > > I've encountered a problem with ~. > > > > Normally, if I do this it works: > > > > ~. 1 1.00000057 1 > > > > 1 1.00000057 > > > > Then, this morning, a bug was reported in our Cebu factory for a > length > > error. It took me a while then I realize that the problem was this: > > > > ~. 20080516 20080516 20080516.00000057 > > > > 20080516 > > > > The code actually calculates how the daily WIP or how many items are > > going to be produced by a certain factory line given a start and end > > date-time. Hence the code is failing because it expects two values and > > is only getting one. > > > > Since this is critical for me, I had to replace that very simple code > > with this: > > > > ".&>~.":&.><&> 20080516 20080516 20080516.00000057 > > > > 20080516 20080516.00000057 > > > > Is this a bug? I've read the documentation and it says that the > > comparison is tolerant. Is there an intolerant comparison much like > the > > intolerant index of (i.!.0)? > > I think you are unwise to work with such data, since it relies on about > 17 decimal digits being precisely handled. > > You should be able to improve this. For example, there is no need to use > the millenium in current dates. Also, the large number of zeroes in the > decimal part are presumably also not needed. Perhaps a format like the > following would be better: > > 80516.0057 > > Incidentally, this is a programming forum question, not general. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
