Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #430

Everybody stop panicking! It's not a bug. (was Re: Can it be! A bug in "for"?)

From luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.postscript
Subject Everybody stop panicking! It's not a bug. (was Re: Can it be! A bug in "for"?)
Date 2011-11-04 01:22 -0700
Organization http://groups.google.com
Message-ID <9c2d692e-b37b-418d-9de2-e43f1faee1d7@s9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References <b0f2ade7-c738-401f-8b72-0615f50f6a96@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4eb354d5$0$13884$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> <3aad31c8-7b0e-4225-a38d-3e97bd62d4f2@t8g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <MPG.291dac7fba639183989867@usenet.plus.net>

Show all headers | View raw


On Nov 4, 3:02 am, ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <3aad31c8-7b0e-4225-a38d-3e97bd62d4f2
> @t8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, mijo...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > > Never trust floating point numbers to behave like integers?
>
> > > Say
> > > 1 1 10 {=} for
> > > ... 10.0 div ...
>
> > True, but shouldn't 'for' be doing a fuzzy comparison?
>
> I think that would lead to as many error situations as currently occur.
> Follow the documentation, beware of using real numbers in for loop
> control variables.
>
>                 Ken

Gotcha. Sorry for the spazzing.
Thanks for the reference.

bedtime.

Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Can it be! A bug in "for"? luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-03 17:11 -0700
  Re: Can it be! A bug in "for"? A D <amd1234@fastmail.com.au> - 2011-11-04 13:58 +1100
    Re: Can it be! A bug in "for"? luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-03 22:18 -0700
      Re: Can it be! A bug in "for"? ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2011-11-04 08:02 +0000
        Everybody stop panicking! It's not a bug. (was Re: Can it be! A bug in "for"?) luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-04 01:22 -0700
      Re: Can it be! A bug in "for"? bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-11-07 16:22 -0600
  Re: Can it be! A bug in "for"? ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2011-11-04 08:01 +0000

csiph-web