Mathprecision would control the number of decimal places, like
numberformat, #.00 would make the math be as good as ten
decimal places allow it to be.
Your routine for testing numbers that are very close was good, but
that's just one example case of the issue. Doing something like
I think we are mincing words here. It's a simple matter of changing
the way the math function works. It should be doing math on the
displayed value not the stored value, because that is what a human
being who doesn't know about processor math errors would expect. And
by the way I think
On May 11, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
I think we are mincing words here. It's a simple matter of changing
the way the math function works.
I understand that it's an oddity that the computer doesn't quite see
how simple the numbers are, but that happens for humans too. Take a
Agree on the mathPrecision value. While it is true that floating point
values are an issue in any programming language, Rev should NOT be
failing on simple comparisons with two decimal places. Computers are
limited in floating point math, but they are perfectly capable of
handling 2
I was thinking of a new property called MathPrecision or something.
Set the mathprecision to -2 would round to 2 decimal places for the
result of any math equasion. Set the mathprecision to 2 would round to
the nearest 100. The default could be -9 in which case the prior error
in floating
--- On Mon, 5/11/09, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:
From: Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com
Subject: Re: Math issue, isn't it?
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 10:21 AM
I was thinking of a new property called MathPrecision or
something. Set
On May 11, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Jan Schenkel wrote:
Scott Raney - the original developer of Metacard, the underlying
engine for Revolution - opted for the better speed of CPU-native
numbers, instead of the byte arithmetic algorithm as implemented in
HyperCard
While that is interesting,
Le 11 mai 09 à 22:09, Colin Holgate a écrit :
On May 11, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Jan Schenkel wrote:
Scott Raney - the original developer of Metacard, the underlying
engine for Revolution - opted for the better speed of CPU-native
numbers, instead of the byte arithmetic algorithm as
sigh
I forgot that this thread comes up once a year or so as well.
There should probably be a FAQ somewhere for questions like
Why isn't Revolution open source?
What's wrong with global variables?
What does unquoted literal mean?
Why can't computers do math?
Why can't I say x = 3?
--
-Mark
applications
obviously have some way to deal with this.
Bob Sneidar
IT Manager
Logos Management
Calvary Chapel CM
On May 11, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Jan Schenkel wrote:
--- On Mon, 5/11/09, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:
From: Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com
Subject: Re: Math issue, isn't it?
To: How to use
Mark Wieder wrote:
sigh
I forgot that this thread comes up once a year or so as well.
There should probably be a FAQ somewhere for questions like
Why isn't Revolution open source?
What's wrong with global variables?
What does unquoted literal mean?
Why can't computers do math?
Why can't I say
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:
Well it looks for all the world then, that in order to write any kind of
accounting application in Revolution, one would have to write their own
functions...
Not just Rev but as explained above, every application has to deal
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:57 AM, J. Landman Gay jac...@hyperactivesw.comwrote:
Why isn't Revolution open source?
What's wrong with global variables?
What does unquoted literal mean?
Why can't computers do math?
Why can't I say x = 3?
And how come we can't use dot syntax?
The HC refugee
with an epsilon that seems prudent.
**
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:45:48 -0700
From: Brian Yennie bri...@qldlearning.com
Subject: Re: Math issue, isn't it?
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Message-ID: c4d20bf6-2dc8-47de-a32b-038f02351...@qldlearning.com
After re-read all ur replies to my question my doubts are still there.
I don't understand why a simple math calculation beetween
not-in-other-way-calculated
numbers can generate round problems.
Using the value function (i've tried put value(283.67-150.00-133.67)0
instead of
put
problems, then use =, otherwise use this
function or your own variant with an epsilon that seems prudent.
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:49:44 -0700
From: Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com
Subject: Re: Math issue, isn't it?
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Message-ID: 67edcdec-6d52-4e99
On May 9, 2009, at 3:23 AM, Giovanni Cannizzaro wrote:
Using the value function (i've tried put
value(283.67-150.00-133.67)0 instead of
put (283.67-150.00-133.67)0 as suggested by Scott Rossi)
temporarily solve my
problems but I think it's a Revolution bug so I make my bug-report
'caus i'm
hi all!!!
I've a little math issue!!!
Try to put this in ur message box:
put 283.67-150.00-133.670
It's surely false ('cause 283.67-150.00-133.67 it' equal to 0)
but Revolution says me it's TRUE!
Can u confirm this?
What's the matter? Why this strange behavior?
TY. bye-
On May 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Giovanni Cannizzaro wrote:
It's surely false ('cause 283.67-150.00-133.67 it' equal to 0)
but Revolution says me it's TRUE!
Can u confirm this?
What's the matter? Why this strange behavior?
You might think that it equals zero, but it doesn't. Try this test:
set
OK That is scary. 32 bit or no that should not be happening.
Bob Sneidar
IT Manager
Logos Management
Calvary Chapel CM
On May 8, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Colin Holgate wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Giovanni Cannizzaro wrote:
It's surely false ('cause 283.67-150.00-133.67 it' equal to 0)
but
set the numberFormat to 0.##
put 283.67-150.00-133.67
returns 0
___
set the numberFormat to 0.##
put 283.67-150.00-133.670
returns true
put 0 0
returns false
On May 8, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Colin Holgate wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Giovanni Cannizzaro wrote:
It's
Colin Holgate wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Giovanni Cannizzaro wrote:
It's surely false ('cause 283.67-150.00-133.67 it' equal to 0)
but Revolution says me it's TRUE!
Can u confirm this?
What's the matter? Why this strange behavior?
You might think that it equals zero, but it doesn't.
On May 8, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Mark Swindell wrote:
set the numberFormat to 0.##
put 283.67-150.00-133.67
returns 0
numberFormat only affects how the number is displayed, it doesn't
affect the value of the number behind the scenes.
___
I didn't know that. Thanks.
On May 8, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Colin Holgate wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Mark Swindell wrote:
set the numberFormat to 0.##
put 283.67-150.00-133.67
returns 0
numberFormat only affects how the number is displayed, it doesn't
affect the value of the number
Do machines serve human or do humans serve machines?
According to my wife . . . :)
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Colin Holgate wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Giovanni Cannizzaro wrote:
It's surely false ('cause 283.67-150.00-133.67 it' equal to 0)
but Revolution says me it's TRUE!
Can u
Then the question becomes, should the IDE be doing math on the real
number or the displayed number? I vote for the displayed number
because that means I can have some kind of control over the outcome.
Clearly if some calculation that comes up with a number cannot be
compared to a literal
If it helps your current issue, using numberFormat as previously
mentioned and round will give you the false you're expecting
set the numberFormat to 0.##
put round(283.67-150.00-133.67)0
However, I've wondered about this myself at what point does the
error show itself? because
Recently, Bob Sneidar wrote:
Then the question becomes, should the IDE be doing math on the real
number or the displayed number? I vote for the displayed number
because that means I can have some kind of control over the outcome.
Clearly if some calculation that comes up with a number cannot
First of all, thank u for ur reply!
I've senn my question it's flaming, right now!!!
But my last and most important questions are:
in what measure I can trust in Revolution's logical
valutation? Why Revolution replies in this way to
a so simple question? In what condition I've to
expect these
Yes, but my point was if someone was creating an Accounting
application, he would have to know to wrap all of his equations in
value(), otherwise he could not do any logical comparisons on equated
values. While your approach works, I think that the better approach is
for this issue to be
30 matches
Mail list logo
