Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why - the 1/10 of second is not exact anyway (unless you happen to
have an atomic clock in an appropriate physical enviroment attached to
your machine). A double's mantissa is better than your typical oscillator.
While it may not be correct, at least it's
At 08:18 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 06:16 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to
run out of precision in double - that is
Dan Sugalski wrote:
While it may not be correct, at least it's exact. If we go with an inexact
representation, we run the risk of accumulating errors and eventually
ending up with a number that's both inexact and incorrect.
Dan Sugalski the even samurai
Why not
Nick Ing-Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote:
All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use
floating point numbers to return as much precision as the platform
supports. All functions
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Theoretically, we'd like to make subs run as fast as ops.
I'd say that the distinction between subs and ops should be dropped
completely. Ops can be used as subs, subs as ops. The only
distinction in the way either is used.
We may need a better way to
Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well theres a difference there when you look at the op tree. That is a call
to a sub, whereas otherwise it is a op.
Isn't that an internals issue?
-- Johan
Graham Barr writes:
: On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 11:50:10AM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
: On 2 Aug 2000, Gisle Aas wrote:
:
: =head1 PERL5 PORTABILITY
:
: Calls to time() could be transformed to int(time()) when converting
: perl5 programs to perl6.
:
: Unless there's a:
:
: use
