Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #3118 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-23 10:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-08-29 09:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 246 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-23 10:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-23 16:24 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-24 07:20 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-23 23:22 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-24 14:38 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-25 17:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 09:45 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 18:03 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-26 20:31 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-26 20:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 02:35 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-27 15:27 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 13:41 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-27 17:34 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 17:40 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 17:50 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-28 23:49 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-27 22:40 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-28 19:33 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-29 13:56 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 09:07 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-29 17:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 11:56 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-08-29 16:12 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-29 20:46 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <kon@iki.fi> - 2011-08-30 07:48 +0300
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 08:22 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 11:34 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 22:22 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2011-08-30 11:17 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 12:35 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-30 07:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 15:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-30 15:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 09:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 10:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 18:01 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:25 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-09-01 20:02 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2011-09-02 10:27 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 11:33 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 15:50 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:49 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 17:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 15:55 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-03 18:06 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 07:58 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 15:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 07:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Andreas Eder <andreas_eder@gmx.net> - 2011-09-02 17:51 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-08-31 12:11 -0400
Complex Number Representation nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 21:22 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-30 07:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-31 10:39 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-31 08:00 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-31 18:38 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 13:18 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-31 19:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-30 00:19 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 23:46 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 09:56 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-01 08:23 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 14:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 04:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-01 19:42 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 23:20 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "James Van Buskirk" <not_valid@comcast.net> - 2011-09-12 15:53 -0600
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-12 22:31 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-12 22:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-12 21:00 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-13 10:10 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-13 04:58 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 07:25 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> - 2011-09-01 10:37 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 18:25 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-01 19:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:38 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 17:13 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-01 14:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 22:49 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 18:08 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-02 00:26 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-09-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 10:46 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-02 12:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-02 13:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-03 14:57 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 15:33 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-03 13:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 08:46 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 08:05 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 17:44 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 08:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 18:52 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 08:55 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 16:46 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-04 13:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 14:03 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 14:15 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 18:52 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 15:00 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 21:02 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 19:22 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-05 07:09 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:48 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-04 20:18 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 03:53 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-04 13:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 03:57 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 08:47 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:03 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 14:30 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:49 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 15:53 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 09:55 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2011-10-19 19:17 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 19:54 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 20:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 19:16 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 16:26 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-05 13:45 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-05 12:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-05 20:51 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-06 10:57 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-06 19:43 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-06 10:55 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-06 11:36 +0100
OT English Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! wclodius@lost-alamos.pet (William Clodius) - 2011-09-05 13:33 -0600
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-05 23:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-07 09:44 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 13:41 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:36 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 20:18 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 08:31 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 13:11 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-05 17:14 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:07 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 12:15 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-07 08:37 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 13:50 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-07 09:21 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:42 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-08 19:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-05 22:50 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-06 13:45 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-06 09:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-07 14:13 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-07 09:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 09:05 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:49 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:17 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-09-10 23:07 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-11 09:06 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-11 10:07 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-11 06:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 08:26 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-11 13:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-11 07:36 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2011-10-19 19:15 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-19 14:45 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-10-19 17:13 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-10-20 13:38 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-27 09:01 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 20:41 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-03 06:58 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 07:19 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-02 21:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-03 09:05 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 16:42 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:00 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 19:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-03 13:05 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 08:09 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:34 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2011-09-04 22:15 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 21:07 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 20:21 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> - 2011-09-06 09:32 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 07:17 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 16:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-07 16:40 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 09:57 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 20:47 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-08 09:13 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-08 18:59 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-09 15:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-10 06:27 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-09 23:04 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:57 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-08 07:50 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-08 12:07 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-08 12:10 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-08 17:38 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-09 03:43 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-08 12:21 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 17:09 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-02 08:59 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:07 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 20:03 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 16:55 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:52 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 15:57 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-10-02 05:51 +1100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 11:31 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 14:08 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 14:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2011-09-07 14:05 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 05:27 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2011-09-16 18:48 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-09-07 18:53 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:37 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-08 10:19 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-09-08 05:14 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-09-11 12:58 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-12 10:01 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 19:35 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-12 09:25 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-12 13:27 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-12 10:41 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-12 11:34 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 05:40 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-12 15:53 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:14 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 11:31 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 05:35 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:40 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-07 20:25 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 16:58 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-08 12:31 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-30 13:46 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-29 09:18 -0700
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-01 12:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adea300f-e5b4-481b-86eb-5c954bb9e553@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3345 |
On Sep 1, 1:30 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > As it happens, I had recently read about a very early British > computer, which happened to be (at least at the time) the _only_ one > that, in addition to, like many commercial computers, doing decimal > arithmetic, actually did internally represent pounds, shillings, and > pence (with twelve pence to the shilling and twenty shillings to the > pound) and perform arithmetic natively on them. > > Since it was one of a kind, though, it's quite true that in general > the British computer industry was not insane. The I.C.T. 1301 it was. http://starringthecomputer.com/computer.php?c=108 http://www.ict1301.co.uk/13010110.htm John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-01 17:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j3osgq$d9m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3345 |
On 9/1/2011 3:30 PM, Quadibloc wrote: > On Sep 1, 11:25 am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: >> In article<1c679456-72d6-4231-9a6d-20f0c9060...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, >> Tim Shoppa<sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote: > >>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot about how to do >>> math with twelfths and twentieths for pennies/shillings/pounds and I >>> can see this driving some interesting British computer >>> representations... >> >> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as integers, >> with appropriate conversion functions! When I were a lad, we were >> required to do mental arithmetic involving currency, and I go back >> to the days of farthings. That skill has disappeared, which has >> had the disadvantage that most people no longer have the 'feel' for >> numbers that used to be normal. > > As it happens, I had recently read about a very early British > computer, which happened to be (at least at the time) the _only_ one > that, in addition to, like many commercial computers, doing decimal > arithmetic, actually did internally represent pounds, shillings, and > pence (with twelve pence to the shilling and twenty shillings to the > pound) and perform arithmetic natively on them. > > Since it was one of a kind, though, it's quite true that in general > the British computer industry was not insane. > Kind of orthogonal to that, PL/I(F) used to have "Sterling Pictures" to edit money amounts to be displayed in pounds, shillings, and pence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-01 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86sjog9bnm.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #3351 |
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes: > On 9/1/2011 3:30 PM, Quadibloc wrote: >> On Sep 1, 11:25 am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: >>> In >>> article<1c679456-72d6-4231-9a6d-20f0c9060...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, >>> Tim Shoppa<sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote: >> >>>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot about how to do >>>> math with twelfths and twentieths for pennies/shillings/pounds and I >>>> can see this driving some interesting British computer >>>> representations... >>> >>> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as integers, >>> with appropriate conversion functions! When I were a lad, we were >>> required to do mental arithmetic involving currency, and I go back >>> to the days of farthings. That skill has disappeared, which has >>> had the disadvantage that most people no longer have the 'feel' for >>> numbers that used to be normal. >> >> As it happens, I had recently read about a very early British >> computer, which happened to be (at least at the time) the _only_ one >> that, in addition to, like many commercial computers, doing decimal >> arithmetic, actually did internally represent pounds, shillings, and >> pence (with twelve pence to the shilling and twenty shillings to the >> pound) and perform arithmetic natively on them. >> >> Since it was one of a kind, though, it's quite true that in general >> the British computer industry was not insane. >> > > Kind of orthogonal to that, PL/I(F) used to have "Sterling Pictures" > to edit money amounts to be displayed in pounds, shillings, and pence. Did it have farthings, too, or did they round to the nearest penny? -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nmm1@cam.ac.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-01 22:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j3oum3$cp0$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #3352 |
In article <86sjog9bnm.fsf@zipcon.net>, Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote: >Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes: > >> Kind of orthogonal to that, PL/I(F) used to have "Sterling Pictures" >> to edit money amounts to be displayed in pounds, shillings, and pence. > >Did it have farthings, too, or did they round to the nearest penny? Farthings ceased to be legal tender at the end of 1960, and had not been used for some time in the sort of financial transactions that were computerised in the 1950s. It's quite possible that they were never supported by any of the commercial systems, hardware or software. I don't know if any even supported halfpennies, which lasted nearly another decade. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-01 18:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cm2067dltqpvfagestfnci7c1qo460vluk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3351 |
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:13:34 -0400, Peter Flass
<Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 9/1/2011 3:30 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 11:25 am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>> In article<1c679456-72d6-4231-9a6d-20f0c9060...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Tim Shoppa<sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot about how to do
>>>> math with twelfths and twentieths for pennies/shillings/pounds and I
>>>> can see this driving some interesting British computer
>>>> representations...
>>>
>>> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as integers,
>>> with appropriate conversion functions! When I were a lad, we were
>>> required to do mental arithmetic involving currency, and I go back
>>> to the days of farthings. That skill has disappeared, which has
>>> had the disadvantage that most people no longer have the 'feel' for
>>> numbers that used to be normal.
>>
>> As it happens, I had recently read about a very early British
>> computer, which happened to be (at least at the time) the _only_ one
>> that, in addition to, like many commercial computers, doing decimal
>> arithmetic, actually did internally represent pounds, shillings, and
>> pence (with twelve pence to the shilling and twenty shillings to the
>> pound) and perform arithmetic natively on them.
>>
>> Since it was one of a kind, though, it's quite true that in general
>> the British computer industry was not insane.
>>
>
>Kind of orthogonal to that, PL/I(F) used to have "Sterling Pictures" to
>edit money amounts to be displayed in pounds, shillings, and pence.
Some IBM versions of Cobol in the 70s as well. You could do
arithmetic on them as well. So you could have:
PIC S9999D88D66V99
Which is: four digits of pounds ("9999"), two digits of shillings
("88"), two digits of pence plus two digits of fractional pence
(66V99). And it's signed ("S"). The "D"s were the separators. There
was other madness as well. There were provisions of single column
pence representation (two different formats), since on punch cards you
had twelve rows, and it was apparently common to use the 11 and 12
punch to represent 10 and 11 pence, rather than use two columns to
deal with 0..11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-02 00:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1319.297T1386T264355@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
| In reply to | #3357 |
In article <cm2067dltqpvfagestfnci7c1qo460vluk@4ax.com>,
robertwessel2@yahoo.com (Robert Wessel) writes:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:13:34 -0400, Peter Flass
> <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Kind of orthogonal to that, PL/I(F) used to have "Sterling Pictures"
>> to edit money amounts to be displayed in pounds, shillings, and pence.
>
> Some IBM versions of Cobol in the 70s as well. You could do
> arithmetic on them as well. So you could have:
>
> PIC S9999D88D66V99
>
> Which is: four digits of pounds ("9999"), two digits of shillings
> ("88"), two digits of pence plus two digits of fractional pence
> (66V99). And it's signed ("S"). The "D"s were the separators. There
> was other madness as well. There were provisions of single column
> pence representation (two different formats), since on punch cards you
> had twelve rows, and it was apparently common to use the 11 and 12
> punch to represent 10 and 11 pence, rather than use two columns to
> deal with 0..11.
I seem to recall reading about those pence representations in an
RPG manual as well.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-02 05:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4E60C6B7.40309@SPAM.comp-arch.net> |
| In reply to | #3361 |
On 9/2/2011 1:26 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> In article<cm2067dltqpvfagestfnci7c1qo460vluk@4ax.com>,
> robertwessel2@yahoo.com (Robert Wessel) writes:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:13:34 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kind of orthogonal to that, PL/I(F) used to have "Sterling Pictures"
>>> to edit money amounts to be displayed in pounds, shillings, and pence.
>>
>> Some IBM versions of Cobol in the 70s as well. You could do
>> arithmetic on them as well. So you could have:
>>
>> PIC S9999D88D66V99
>>
>> Which is: four digits of pounds ("9999"), two digits of shillings
>> ("88"), two digits of pence plus two digits of fractional pence
>> (66V99). And it's signed ("S"). The "D"s were the separators. There
>> was other madness as well. There were provisions of single column
>> pence representation (two different formats), since on punch cards you
>> had twelve rows, and it was apparently common to use the 11 and 12
>> punch to represent 10 and 11 pence, rather than use two columns to
>> deal with 0..11.
>
> I seem to recall reading about those pence representations in an
> RPG manual as well.
Q: did the PIC format actually control numeric representation? I don't
know the carry rules for LSD (Pounds, Shilling, Pence)[*], but at the
least I suspect that if the fractional pence were represented as
decimals, that you overflowed the V in a different way than you
overflowed the D and P.
Or, were the PIC formats mainly a display format? And the internal
representation an integer, in units of 1/100th of a penny, or the like?
I am a bit interested because long ago I wrote a C library for PIC
representations: converting C types like int or float to strings for
display or output, using a PIC format. If I were to rewrite it in C++
to avoid the cruftiness of C string handling, it would look something like
string result = pic("$$$$.99",int_arg);
Unfortunately, the source code for this library resides in some long ago
employer. I have often considered reviving it, because IMHO PIC
representations are more natural than printf formats.
[*] although I have an English background, I grew up in Canada and never
had to pay attention to British currency except on vacation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-02 10:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8ht167tjg1dg9e22ekkf46dhfud0am962g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3370 |
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 05:06:15 -0700, "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew"
<andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> wrote:
>On 9/2/2011 1:26 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> In article<cm2067dltqpvfagestfnci7c1qo460vluk@4ax.com>,
>> robertwessel2@yahoo.com (Robert Wessel) writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:13:34 -0400, Peter Flass
>>> <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kind of orthogonal to that, PL/I(F) used to have "Sterling Pictures"
>>>> to edit money amounts to be displayed in pounds, shillings, and pence.
>>>
>>> Some IBM versions of Cobol in the 70s as well. You could do
>>> arithmetic on them as well. So you could have:
>>>
>>> PIC S9999D88D66V99
>>>
>>> Which is: four digits of pounds ("9999"), two digits of shillings
>>> ("88"), two digits of pence plus two digits of fractional pence
>>> (66V99). And it's signed ("S"). The "D"s were the separators. There
>>> was other madness as well. There were provisions of single column
>>> pence representation (two different formats), since on punch cards you
>>> had twelve rows, and it was apparently common to use the 11 and 12
>>> punch to represent 10 and 11 pence, rather than use two columns to
>>> deal with 0..11.
>>
>> I seem to recall reading about those pence representations in an
>> RPG manual as well.
>
>Q: did the PIC format actually control numeric representation? I don't
>know the carry rules for LSD (Pounds, Shilling, Pence)[*], but at the
>least I suspect that if the fractional pence were represented as
>decimals, that you overflowed the V in a different way than you
>overflowed the D and P.
>
>Or, were the PIC formats mainly a display format? And the internal
>representation an integer, in units of 1/100th of a penny, or the like?
>
>I am a bit interested because long ago I wrote a C library for PIC
>representations: converting C types like int or float to strings for
>display or output, using a PIC format. If I were to rewrite it in C++
>to avoid the cruftiness of C string handling, it would look something like
>
> string result = pic("$$$$.99",int_arg);
>
>Unfortunately, the source code for this library resides in some long ago
>employer. I have often considered reviving it, because IMHO PIC
>representations are more natural than printf formats.
>
>
>[*] although I have an English background, I grew up in Canada and never
>had to pay attention to British currency except on vacation.
As with PICs in general in Cobol, they were both. The example I
posted above S9999D88D66V99 was non-edited format, and you could
perform arithmetic on it. If you specified S9999D88D6, you got one of
the formats with the "single column" pence representation I mentioned,
but still usable for arithmetic. Overflow from pence to shillings to
pounds was handled by the type, so you could add Sterling quantities
naturally.
You could specified an edited format, for example, $$$9BD88BD66.99,
and you'd get floating currency signs in the pounds field, spaces
between the pounds, shilling and pence, and a decimal point character
for the fractional pence. That would be useable as a numeric target,
(IOW you could "ADD 1 to X GIVING EDITED-STERLING-FIELD"), but you
could not use the result in a computation (although it was,
approximately, usable as a string).
There was some weirdness with signs too, IIRC.
I do not remember if you could specify non-character formats (IOW,
packed decimal or binary) for the computational formats (IOW, my first
example would use ten bytes, with each byte a digit), but if you're
interested I can look it up - I have an old Cobol manual in the
archives at the office, but I'm not there today. Bug me if I don't
get back to you by Tuesday.
But I've always though that some additional formatting in printf
formatting strings would be an obvious feature to add to C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-02 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j3r9hq$5e5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3381 |
On 9/2/2011 8:46 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: snip > But I've always though that some additional formatting in printf > formatting strings would be an obvious feature to add to C. Yes, of course. While the full functionality of picture clauses might be nice, A small subset would go a long way. The single thing I would most like to see is to make it easy to print numbers with separators every three characters. I get so frustrated when I see things like the output of a profiling program say a routine was executed 34587706689349 times. It sure makes it hard to read and there is no excuse for that. I realize there are issues with commas versus spaces as separators, but these could be overcome. I would like to see the "digit separated" format be another editing code so it would be trivial for a programmer to specify it without having to create a full picture clause, which would be many more characters to input and thus less frequently used. The second most useful feature I suspect would be a floating currency indicator. Once you get beyond those two, I think the utility falls off pretty quickly, though the ability to specify that negative values should be a different color might be nice. But I suspect that say the ability to have CR or DB automatically appended to the value depending on sign is pretty unimportant. But digit separators would help in a lot of places. -- - Stephen Fuld (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-02 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8639gek6lo.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #3389 |
Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes: > On 9/2/2011 8:46 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: > > snip > >> But I've always though that some additional formatting in printf >> formatting strings would be an obvious feature to add to C. > > > Yes, of course. While the full functionality of picture clauses might > be nice, A small subset would go a long way. The single thing I would > most like to see is to make it easy to print numbers with separators > every three characters. I get so frustrated when I see things like > the output of a profiling program say a routine was executed > > 34587706689349 times. > > It sure makes it hard to read and there is no excuse for that. I > realize there are issues with commas versus spaces as separators, but > these could be overcome. Even if they use spaces instead of commas, it's still easier to read than no separators at all. -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-03 14:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0004AC0A5C77E22C@aca221f7.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #3391 |
Patrick Scheible wrote: > Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes: > >> On 9/2/2011 8:46 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: >> >> snip >> >>> But I've always though that some additional formatting in printf >>> formatting strings would be an obvious feature to add to C. >> >> >> Yes, of course. While the full functionality of picture clauses might >> be nice, A small subset would go a long way. The single thing I would >> most like to see is to make it easy to print numbers with separators >> every three characters. I get so frustrated when I see things like >> the output of a profiling program say a routine was executed >> >> 34587706689349 times. >> >> It sure makes it hard to read and there is no excuse for that. I >> realize there are issues with commas versus spaces as separators, but >> these could be overcome. > > Even if they use spaces instead of commas, it's still easier to read > than no separators at all. Not spaces.. Which do you chose? The American use of comma or the European use of period? In one side of the pond, the period implies fractions. We couldn't decide in the 70s. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nmm1@cam.ac.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-03 15:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j3tdrf$h1o$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #3406 |
In article <PM0004AC0A5C77E22C@aca221f7.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Patrick Scheible wrote: >> Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes: >> >>> 34587706689349 times. >>> >>> It sure makes it hard to read and there is no excuse for that. I >>> realize there are issues with commas versus spaces as separators, but >>> these could be overcome. >> >> Even if they use spaces instead of commas, it's still easier to read >> than no separators at all. > >Not spaces.. Which do you chose? The American use of comma or >the European use of period? In one side of the pond, the period >implies fractions. We couldn't decide in the 70s. Er, you got the commas from us! It's not a transpondian thing, but a transditchian one. And why not spaces? Seriously. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-03 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <281cef78-1ade-476e-b7c0-55b52377a732@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3408 |
On Sep 3, 8:33 am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > Er, you got the commas from us! It's not a transpondian thing, > but a transditchian one. And why not spaces? Seriously. Although it used to be that while both the Americans and the British used the comma as a thousands/millions separator, for the decimal point the Americans used the ordinary period even in typesetting, whereas, at least when not constrained by the limitations of the typewriter, the British used a dot raised above the baseline, in the middle of the digit, as their decimal point. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 08:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cfp2eFf7vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3422 |
Quadibloc wrote > n...@cam.ac.uk wrote >> Er, you got the commas from us! It's not a transpondian thing, >> but a transditchian one. And why not spaces? Seriously. > Although it used to be that while both the Americans and the British > used the comma as a thousands/millions separator, for the decimal > point the Americans used the ordinary period even in typesetting, > whereas, at least when not constrained by the limitations of the > typewriter, the British used a dot raised above the baseline, in the > middle of the digit, as their decimal point. No they did not do that universally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 08:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20110904080541.864c4eb6.steveo@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #3426 |
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 08:46:36 +1000 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > Quadibloc wrote > > n...@cam.ac.uk wrote > > >> Er, you got the commas from us! It's not a transpondian thing, > >> but a transditchian one. And why not spaces? Seriously. > > > Although it used to be that while both the Americans and the British > > used the comma as a thousands/millions separator, for the decimal > > point the Americans used the ordinary period even in typesetting, > > whereas, at least when not constrained by the limitations of the > > typewriter, the British used a dot raised above the baseline, in the > > middle of the digit, as their decimal point. > > No they did not do that universally. We did and do. The full stop is only used as a substitute when the centred dot is unavailable. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 17:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cgon5Fbp6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3432 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Quadibloc wrote >>> n...@cam.ac.uk wrote >>>> Er, you got the commas from us! It's not a transpondian thing, >>>> but a transditchian one. And why not spaces? Seriously. >>> Although it used to be that while both the Americans and the British >>> used the comma as a thousands/millions separator, for the decimal >>> point the Americans used the ordinary period even in typesetting, >>> whereas, at least when not constrained by the limitations of the >>> typewriter, the British used a dot raised above the baseline, in the >>> middle of the digit, as their decimal point. >> No they did not do that universally. > We did and do. Wrong, and completely trivial to prove that that is wrong using books.google. > The full stop is only used as a substitute when the centred dot is unavailable. Wrong, and completely trivial to prove that that is wrong using books.google.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 08:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20110904085620.c1d72d66.steveo@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #3434 |
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 17:44:04 +1000 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >> Quadibloc wrote > >>> n...@cam.ac.uk wrote > > >>>> Er, you got the commas from us! It's not a transpondian thing, > >>>> but a transditchian one. And why not spaces? Seriously. > > >>> Although it used to be that while both the Americans and the British > >>> used the comma as a thousands/millions separator, for the decimal > >>> point the Americans used the ordinary period even in typesetting, > >>> whereas, at least when not constrained by the limitations of the > >>> typewriter, the British used a dot raised above the baseline, in the > >>> middle of the digit, as their decimal point. > > >> No they did not do that universally. > > > We did and do. > > Wrong, and completely trivial to prove that that is wrong using > books.google. > > > The full stop is only used as a substitute when the centred dot is > > unavailable. > > Wrong, and completely trivial to prove that that is wrong using > books.google. Bear in mind that a typewriter is one place where the centred dot is unavailable. Then go and look at any hand written numbers with decimal points in them anywhere in the UK. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 18:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cgsi5Fa92U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3435 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Quadibloc wrote >>>>> n...@cam.ac.uk wrote >>>>>> Er, you got the commas from us! It's not a transpondian thing, >>>>>> but a transditchian one. And why not spaces? Seriously. >>>>> Although it used to be that while both the Americans and the >>>>> British used the comma as a thousands/millions separator, for >>>>> the decimal point the Americans used the ordinary period even >>>>> in typesetting, whereas, at least when not constrained by the >>>>> limitations of the typewriter, the British used a dot raised above >>>>> the baseline, in the middle of the digit, as their decimal point. >>>> No they did not do that universally. >>> We did and do. >> Wrong, and completely trivial to prove that that is wrong using books.google. >>> The full stop is only used as a substitute when the centred dot is unavailable. >> Wrong, and completely trivial to prove that that is wrong using books.google. > Bear in mind that a typewriter is one place where the centred dot is unavailable. Pity we arent talking about typewriters with books.google > Then go and look at any hand written numbers with decimal points in them anywhere in the UK. Irrelevant to what shows up with books.google
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c40dad8-9b4b-45dd-9f06-c304fb2fd831@y21g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3435 |
On Sep 4, 1:56 am, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote: > Bear in mind that a typewriter is one place where the centred dot > is unavailable. Then go and look at any hand written numbers with decimal > points in them anywhere in the UK. However, I do have to admit that of late, the use of the raised dot as a decimal mark has been fading in typeset material in the UK. This character isn't available on the computer keyboard, for one thing. Also, however, the SI metric standards object to it because it resembles the dot used as a multiplication symbol (although that is usually bolder). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark has interesting information about this. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nmm1@cam.ac.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 16:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j406h8$ple$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #3443 |
In article <2c40dad8-9b4b-45dd-9f06-c304fb2fd831@y21g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Sep 4, 1:56 am, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote: > >> Bear in mind that a typewriter is one place where the cen= >tred dot >> is unavailable. Then go and look at any hand written numbers with decimal >> points in them anywhere in the UK. > >However, I do have to admit that of late, the use of the raised dot as >a decimal mark has been fading in typeset material in the UK. This >character isn't available on the computer keyboard, for one thing. >Also, however, the SI metric standards object to it because it >resembles the dot used as a multiplication symbol (although that is >usually bolder). I don't have any old tables in my personal books, and can't be bothered to check, but I strongly suspect that the usage was yet another example of late Victorian dogmatism and that 18th century ones would have used whatever they felt like or was available. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web