RE: Re: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop

2001-06-21 Thread Ian . Pine
> try some other base than the boring 2:) 0.2 decimal is 0.0121012101210121. in base 3 (well, you did ask for something different :O) It is not an irritational number because it can be represented by the ratio of two integers - 1/5 decimal or 1/12 base 3 (hey, I've already had my finger

RE: Re: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop

2001-06-20 Thread Ian . Pine
Ah, now explained like that with all the maths makes it much clearer (yes, really it does :) so when we want to find out the exponent of the number whose common logarithm is the argument to INT() then we have a useful function that does just that. > This is one case where the manual gets it wro

RE: Re: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop

2001-06-19 Thread Steve Howe
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I still can't see the usefulness in having INT(-3.01)=-4 though. Any > mathematicians care to comment? Well, as an ex-mathematician I also was not surprised. I'm sure various languages I've used have behaved the same way i.e. INT rounds down to the

RE: Re: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop

2001-06-19 Thread Ian . Pine
Hmmm - the odd behaviour with negative numbers is not unique to SBASIC. I've just tried it with QBASIC in NT and it does exactly the same. I'd be interested to read the ISO or ANSI standard on this for the justification. Curiously, the 68040 provides two instructions for getting an integer