Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-20 Thread Peter Crowther
On 19 January 2011 16:30, Christopher Schultz wrote: > [Peter] >> I'm actually interested to know your environment for your >> precision.c code, as a single-precision (32-bit) float is only good for 6-7 >> significant figures and your answers agree to 11sf. ... and I'm cross-eyed and can't count

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 André, On 1/19/2011 6:52 AM, André Warnier wrote: > #include > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { > > int thousand = 1000; > int sixty = 60; > int twentyfour = 24; > int hundred = 100; > int three = 3; > > int cacheTime1 = (1000 * 60 * 60 * 24

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter, On 1/19/2011 6:09 AM, Peter Crowther wrote: > On 19 January 2011 03:10, Christopher Schultz > wrote: > >> Yup: float is the default decimal type. Double-precision takes longer, >> so you have to ask for it. > > Chris, that's the only comment i

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Peter Crowther
On 19 January 2011 15:53, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: > No, most hardware (e.g., all flavors of x86) just sets a flag indicating that > an overflow has occurred; it's up to the executing program to check the flag. And on some machines (again, x86 springs to mind) it's easier to check some flags

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chuck, On 1/18/2011 9:47 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: > However, I suspect that Objective-C still follows the C standards for > expressions. Objective-C /must/ follow the C standards: it is a strict superset of C. Early Objective-C compilers were

RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Jeffrey Janner
> -Original Message- > From: Caldarale, Charles R [mailto:chuck.caldar...@unisys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:54 AM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year > doesn't work > > > From: Jef

RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Caldarale, Charles R
> From: Jeffrey Janner [mailto:jeffrey.jan...@polydyne.com] > Subject: RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't > work > My hardware internals knowledge is just as rusty as my coding > skills, but doesn't the hardware catch the overflow and rai

RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Jeffrey Janner
> -Original Message- > From: Caldarale, Charles R [mailto:chuck.caldar...@unisys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:13 AM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year > doesn't work > > > From: Je

RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Caldarale, Charles R
> From: Jeffrey Janner [mailto:jeffrey.jan...@polydyne.com] > Subject: RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't > work > Does the Java compiler do this? One would think so, but judging > from the results you guys are displaying, it seems not

RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Jeffrey Janner
> -Original Message- > From: André Warnier [mailto:a...@ice-sa.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:52 AM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year > doesn't work > > Christopher Schultz wrote: >

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread André Warnier
Peter Crowther wrote: On 19 January 2011 08:34, André Warnier wrote: Well, they haven't made a language yet which can divide acres by feet and coerce the result into furlongs. Google "20 acres / 22 feet in furlongs" and prepare for a surprise ;-). I /am/ impressed. On the other hand, it

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread André Warnier
Christopher Schultz wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 André, (You always make me write so much code!) I don't /make/ you write code, I just provide the inspiration. I'm quite good at that, when I don't have to do the work myself. Thanks for writing the code in question thou

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Peter Crowther
On 19 January 2011 08:34, André Warnier wrote: > Well, they haven't made a language yet which can divide acres by feet and > coerce the result into furlongs. > Google "20 acres / 22 feet in furlongs" and prepare for a surprise ;-). - Peter

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread Peter Crowther
On 19 January 2011 03:10, Christopher Schultz wrote: > Yup: float is the default decimal type. Double-precision takes longer, > so you have to ask for it. > Chris, that's the only comment in your post I'd take issue with. To my knowledge, a constant with a fractional part is assumed to be double

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-19 Thread André Warnier
Caldarale, Charles R wrote: (No wonder after that, that lunar probes go CFIT.) Nah, it's that damn metric system (think Gimli Glider). Well, they haven't made a language yet which can divide acres by feet and coerce the result into furlongs. And thanks for the Gimli Glider story, I did no

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-18 Thread Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 André, (You always make me write so much code!) On 1/18/2011 7:12 PM, André Warnier wrote: > Christopher Schultz wrote: >> There's nothing magical about the first operand: you can cast any of the >> operands to trigger this promotion. > > Not quite

RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-18 Thread Caldarale, Charles R
> From: André Warnier [mailto:a...@ice-sa.com] > Subject: Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't > work > What kind of stupid compiler is this, which requires me to say > double d = 1.0 / 2; > to get a correct result ? One that abides by th

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-18 Thread André Warnier
Christopher Schultz wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 André, On 1/16/2011 8:41 AM, André Warnier wrote: Ran Berenfeld wrote: well ...no... first evaluate, then assign. and constants are int by default. I think C/C++ would have the same problem... Maybe. FYI they do. B

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-18 Thread Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 André, On 1/16/2011 8:41 AM, André Warnier wrote: > Ran Berenfeld wrote: >> well ...no... first evaluate, then assign. and constants are int by >> default. >> I think C/C++ would have the same problem... >> > Maybe. FYI they do. > But then why does

RE: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-16 Thread Caldarale, Charles R
> From: Len Popp [mailto:len.p...@gmail.com] > Subject: Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't > work > > I suppose that there must be some implacable logic in the way it's done now, > > other than the evil intention to fool the

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-16 Thread Len Popp
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 08:41, André Warnier wrote: > Ran Berenfeld wrote: >> >> well ...no... first evaluate, then assign. and constants are int by >> default. >> I think C/C++ would have the same problem... >> > Maybe.  But then why does the fact of specifying just the first right-hand > side co

Re: [OT] Setting HTTP response headers caching for 1 year doesn't work

2011-01-16 Thread André Warnier
Ran Berenfeld wrote: well ...no... first evaluate, then assign. and constants are int by default. I think C/C++ would have the same problem... Maybe. But then why does the fact of specifying just the first right-hand side constant in the calculation as a long, magically change the whole result