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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 09:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9coqjdF9ppU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3417 |
In article <3nq467h8eek90oru2p4mtqljsp7hm56o99@4ax.com>, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 3 Sep 2011 14:57:15 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > > >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. > > > C, at least, has answers to a few of those questions already vial the > locale mechanism. In Cobol, you could specify "DECIMAL POINT IS > COMMA" in the program, and it would swap the decimal point and comma > characters from American to European usage, although you still coded > the comma as the separator character and the period as the decimal > point in the picture strings themselves. Java also has a notion of locales, which among other things can be used to format numbers and dates according to "local" conventions. "Just sayin'", I guess. > We dealt with some of that internally many years ago, and ended up > with a mini-language for describing the formatting. [ snip further details ] -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20110907121549.6069163f.steveo@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #3510 |
On 7 Sep 2011 09:07:57 GMT blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <3nq467h8eek90oru2p4mtqljsp7hm56o99@4ax.com>, > > C, at least, has answers to a few of those questions already vial the > > locale mechanism. In Cobol, you could specify "DECIMAL POINT IS > > COMMA" in the program, and it would swap the decimal point and comma > > characters from American to European usage, although you still coded > > the comma as the separator character and the period as the decimal > > point in the picture strings themselves. > > Java also has a notion of locales, which among other things can be > used to format numbers and dates according to "local" conventions. > "Just sayin'", I guess. The best generally available support for internationalised formatting (complete with tools for numbers (including in words), currency, date and time, messages and collation) is the ICU library - although even that doesn't handle LSD. -- 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 | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 08:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-E65722.08374607092011@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #3515 |
In article <20110907121549.6069163f.steveo@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 7 Sep 2011 09:07:57 GMT > blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <3nq467h8eek90oru2p4mtqljsp7hm56o99@4ax.com>, > > > > C, at least, has answers to a few of those questions already vial the > > > locale mechanism. In Cobol, you could specify "DECIMAL POINT IS > > > COMMA" in the program, and it would swap the decimal point and comma > > > characters from American to European usage, although you still coded > > > the comma as the separator character and the period as the decimal > > > point in the picture strings themselves. > > > > Java also has a notion of locales, which among other things can be > > used to format numbers and dates according to "local" conventions. > > "Just sayin'", I guess. > > The best generally available support for internationalised > formatting (complete with tools for numbers (including in words), currency, > date and time, messages and collation) is the ICU library - although even > that doesn't handle LSD. Most programmers don't handle LSD well at least for programming even in the intensive care unit. -- Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 13:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20110907135024.cc1805fa.steveo@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #3517 |
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:37:46 -0400 Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: > Most programmers don't handle LSD well at least for programming even in > the intensive care unit. What was that quote, something like "Two things were popular at Berkeley in the 70s LSD and BSD we think this is not a coincidence". -- 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 | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 09:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-344AEF.09212807092011@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #3518 |
In article <20110907135024.cc1805fa.steveo@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:37:46 -0400 > Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: > > > Most programmers don't handle LSD well at least for programming even in > > the intensive care unit. > > What was that quote, something like "Two things were popular at > Berkeley in the 70s LSD and BSD we think this is not a coincidence". I thought BSD et. al. were mostly Mary Jane powered. -- Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 08:42 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <6kflj8x5ik.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> |
| In reply to | #3521 |
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: >> > Most programmers don't handle LSD well at least for programming even in >> > the intensive care unit. >> What was that quote, something like "Two things were popular at >> Berkeley in the 70s LSD and BSD we think this is not a coincidence". >I thought BSD et. al. were mostly Mary Jane powered. Oh for Joy. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. / \ and postings | --HL Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0004AC6EB2DDEEF5@aca29b66.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #3552 |
Bernd Felsche wrote: > Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>> Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: > >>> > Most programmers don't handle LSD well at least for programming even in >>> > the intensive care unit. > >>> What was that quote, something like "Two things were popular at >>> Berkeley in the 70s LSD and BSD we think this is not a coincidence". > >>I thought BSD et. al. were mostly Mary Jane powered. > > Oh for Joy. ODE for Joy? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b10b483d-90cc-4022-becb-fa379b3aa446@h7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3552 |
On Sep 7, 6:42 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > Oh for Joy. Oh, for Tuna! Oh, for Chicken! Oh, for Liver! Meow, meow, meow, meow... that was the joke that occurred to me after hearing a famous classical work... before I heard it, I half expected to hear... Carmina, Carmina Carmina Burana Carmina, Carmina I love you so... John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-05 22:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86r53u8bi8.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #3406 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > 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. You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-06 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0004AC4632233713@aca2887d.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #3491 |
Patrick Scheible wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> 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. > > You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... With what? A divining rod? ;-) /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-06 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8662l5d579.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #3501 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > Patrick Scheible wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> >>> 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. >> >> You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... > > With what? A divining rod? ;-) If there are two different separator symbols in use, the one on the right is the decimal and the one(s) on the left are separating thousands from hundreds, millions from hundred thousands, etc. If the same separator symbol is used more than once, it's separating thousands from hundreds, etc. If the separator symbol is used exactly once, if it's not between the third and the fourth digit from the right, it's a decimal point. It's only ambiguous if the number could have an integer value between 1,000 and 999,999 or could have a decimal value between 1.000 and 999.999. (In that case, you look through the same table or document for another number that isn't in the ambiguous range. -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0004AC5AA2D6B44C@ac814024.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #3502 |
Patrick Scheible wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> Patrick Scheible wrote: >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... >> >> With what? A divining rod? ;-) > > If there are two different separator symbols in use, the one on the > right is the decimal and the one(s) on the left are separating thousands > from hundreds, millions from hundred thousands, etc. > > If the same separator symbol is used more than once, it's separating > thousands from hundreds, etc. > > If the separator symbol is used exactly once, if it's not between the > third and the fourth digit from the right, it's a decimal point. > > It's only ambiguous if the number could have an integer value between > 1,000 and 999,999 or could have a decimal value between 1.000 and > 999.999. (In that case, you look through the same table or document for > another number that isn't in the ambiguous range. Or there's a typo. In my working life, that happened a lot. So how do you make a guess? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ty8ol2xk.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #3523 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > Patrick Scheible wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> >>> Patrick Scheible wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... >>> >>> With what? A divining rod? ;-) >> >> If there are two different separator symbols in use, the one on the >> right is the decimal and the one(s) on the left are separating thousands >> from hundreds, millions from hundred thousands, etc. >> >> If the same separator symbol is used more than once, it's separating >> thousands from hundreds, etc. >> >> If the separator symbol is used exactly once, if it's not between the >> third and the fourth digit from the right, it's a decimal point. >> >> It's only ambiguous if the number could have an integer value between >> 1,000 and 999,999 or could have a decimal value between 1.000 and >> 999.999. (In that case, you look through the same table or document for >> another number that isn't in the ambiguous range. > > Or there's a typo. In my working life, that happened a lot. So how do > you make a guess? I don't know of any way to tell for sure if what you are looking at is a typo. -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 09:05 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <n0hlj8x5ik.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> |
| In reply to | #3528 |
Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote: >jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> Or there's a typo. In my working life, that happened a lot. So how do >> you make a guess? >I don't know of any way to tell for sure if what you are looking at is a >typo. Pick a number between one and ten. OK. Is it 5? No Is it 4? No Is it 10? No Is it 1? No Is it 3? No Is it 2? No Is it 8? No 9? No 7? No 6? No ?? I asked you to pick a number between one and ten ... it's got to be one of them! e-squared is between one and ten, isn't it? -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. / \ and postings | --HL Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0004AC6E9E256324@aca29b66.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #3528 |
Patrick Scheible wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> Patrick Scheible wrote: >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> >>>> Patrick Scheible wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... >>>> >>>> With what? A divining rod? ;-) >>> >>> If there are two different separator symbols in use, the one on the >>> right is the decimal and the one(s) on the left are separating thousands >>> from hundreds, millions from hundred thousands, etc. >>> >>> If the same separator symbol is used more than once, it's separating >>> thousands from hundreds, etc. >>> >>> If the separator symbol is used exactly once, if it's not between the >>> third and the fourth digit from the right, it's a decimal point. >>> >>> It's only ambiguous if the number could have an integer value between >>> 1,000 and 999,999 or could have a decimal value between 1.000 and >>> 999.999. (In that case, you look through the same table or document for >>> another number that isn't in the ambiguous range. >> >> Or there's a typo. In my working life, that happened a lot. So how do >> you make a guess? > > I don't know of any way to tell for sure if what you are looking at is a > typo. <grin> When I did that kind of work, I learned to sense those kinds of errors. If it was my typo, I could fix it to match what was written. If it was the other guy's error, I had to know if that's what he meant or if it was a goof. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 04:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cpsl3FihtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3523 |
jmfbahciv wrote > Patrick Scheible wrote >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >>> Patrick Scheible wrote >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote >>>>>> Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote >>>>>>> Robert Wessel wrote >>>>>>>> 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. >>>> You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... >>> With what? A divining rod? ;-) >> If there are two different separator symbols in use, the one on >> the right is the decimal and the one(s) on the left are separating >> thousands from hundreds, millions from hundred thousands, etc. >> If the same separator symbol is used more than once, it's separating >> thousands from hundreds, etc. >> If the separator symbol is used exactly once, if it's not between the >> third and the fourth digit from the right, it's a decimal point. >> It's only ambiguous if the number could have an integer value between >> 1,000 and 999,999 or could have a decimal value between 1.000 and >> 999.999. (In that case, you look through the same table or document >> for another number that isn't in the ambiguous range. > Or there's a typo. In my working life, that happened a lot. So how do you make a guess? There's normally enough numbers to make a typo stand out like dogs balls. And its usually obvious who is likely to be using the european radix separator anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0004AC6EA3E30930@aca29b66.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #3537 |
Rod Speed wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote >> Patrick Scheible wrote >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >>>> Patrick Scheible wrote >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >>>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote >>>>>>> Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote >>>>>>>> Robert Wessel wrote > >>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>> You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... > >>>> With what? A divining rod? ;-) > >>> If there are two different separator symbols in use, the one on >>> the right is the decimal and the one(s) on the left are separating >>> thousands from hundreds, millions from hundred thousands, etc. > >>> If the same separator symbol is used more than once, it's separating >>> thousands from hundreds, etc. > >>> If the separator symbol is used exactly once, if it's not between the >>> third and the fourth digit from the right, it's a decimal point. > >>> It's only ambiguous if the number could have an integer value between >>> 1,000 and 999,999 or could have a decimal value between 1.000 and >>> 999.999. (In that case, you look through the same table or document >>> for another number that isn't in the ambiguous range. > >> Or there's a typo. In my working life, that happened a lot. So how do you make a guess? > > There's normally enough numbers to make a typo stand out like dogs balls. Not always. > > And its usually obvious who is likely to be using the european radix separator anyway. > > Or trying to learn American. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-09 03:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9csbl1Ft9lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3568 |
jmfbahciv wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> jmfbahciv wrote >>> Patrick Scheible wrote >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote >>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >>>>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote >>>>>>>> Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote >>>>>>>>> Robert Wessel wrote >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> You can usually figure out what's being used by looking.... >>>>> With what? A divining rod? ;-) >>>> If there are two different separator symbols in use, the one on >>>> the right is the decimal and the one(s) on the left are separating >>>> thousands from hundreds, millions from hundred thousands, etc. >>>> If the same separator symbol is used more than once, it's >>>> separating thousands from hundreds, etc. >>>> If the separator symbol is used exactly once, if it's not between >>>> the third and the fourth digit from the right, it's a decimal point. >>>> It's only ambiguous if the number could have an integer value >>>> between 1,000 and 999,999 or could have a decimal value between >>>> 1.000 and 999.999. (In that case, you look through the same table >>>> or document for another number that isn't in the ambiguous range. >>> Or there's a typo. In my working life, that happened a lot. So >>> how do you make a guess? >> There's normally enough numbers to make a typo stand out like dogs balls. > Not always. I used the word normally for a reason. There isnt too much stuff with just a single number with a radix separator or thousands separator and no numbers with both, so like I said, a typousually stands out like dogs balls. >> And its usually obvious who is likely to be using the european radix separator anyway. > Or trying to learn American. You dont see much of that either, they mostly keep using their native style.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-10 23:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ujo67tm36vc0h2nd6vfh6bbtlakifrjqu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3502 |
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:08:10 -0700, Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net>
wrote:
>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You can usually figure out what's being used by looking....
>>
>> With what? A divining rod? ;-)
>
>If there are two different separator symbols in use, the one on the
>right is the decimal and the one(s) on the left are separating thousands
>from hundreds, millions from hundred thousands, etc.
>
>If the same separator symbol is used more than once, it's separating
>thousands from hundreds, etc.
>
>If the separator symbol is used exactly once, if it's not between the
>third and the fourth digit from the right, it's a decimal point.
>
>It's only ambiguous if the number could have an integer value between
>1,000 and 999,999 or could have a decimal value between 1.000 and
>999.999. (In that case, you look through the same table or document for
>another number that isn't in the ambiguous range.
Try
999.999,999
Is it 999 and 999 thousand 999 millionths or 999 thousand 999 and 999
thousandths?
Sincerely,
Gene wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-11 09:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20110911090645.3b2b1f68.steveo@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #3609 |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:07:43 -0700 Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote: > Try > 999.999,999 > Is it 999 and 999 thousand 999 millionths or 999 thousand 999 and 999 > thousandths? I have never seen separators after the decimal point, so it's the latter. -- 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]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web