Richard Gaskin wrote:
One man's "artifact" is another man's "bug". :)
The original poster never specified that it was a Rev bug,
The *original* poster (jbv) didn't, but Jonathan (to whom I was
replying) did. At least, he said that Rev did this, and he said (in an
earlier email) that it was a software bug - so I claim that adds up to
saying it was a Rev bug.
and you've shown that the anomaly lies outside of Rev.
Computers are the servants of humans, not the other way around.
You wish !!
If a computer system is designed in such a way that it no longer
serves its masters faithfully by honoring things like the explicit
order of exectution, it's commonly called a "bug", and it's usually up
to another human to come in an fix it.
Whether the fault lies with Rev or the microprocessor, the anwer of
179 is logically incorrect. It may be understandable, but
understanding why it's giving an incorrect answer doesn't change the
answer. :)
You might get Rev to introduce a workaround (e.g. by changing the
effective meaning of trunc() to be "round at some ;eve; of precision
that will do what I *want*, and then truncate", as Mark suggested) - but
I fear that only leads to someone, some day in the future open a BZ to
say that Rev gets a different answer to the same calculation than 95% of
the installed base of languages).
Bring BCD , that's what I say .... :-)
--
Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: 06/10/2005
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
