How about BigDoubles and BigIntegers?
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> I don't think you can avoid that.
>
> I'd suggest making it CQL-only if we do doubles -- no backwards
> incompatibility required there.
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Jason wrote:
>> Sorry, I sho
I don't think you can avoid that.
I'd suggest making it CQL-only if we do doubles -- no backwards
incompatibility required there.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Jason wrote:
> Sorry, I should have been more clear; I was speaking to the question of how
> to avoid modifying the thrift interface
Sorry, I should have been more clear; I was speaking to the question of how to
avoid modifying the thrift interface.
- Jason
On Jun 27, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Joseph Stein wrote:
> hmmm, well Jason it is not as accurate as I would have thought at first and
> the increments on the long are whacked
hmmm, well Jason it is not as accurate as I would have thought at first and
the increments on the long are whacked (which now that I think about it more
makes sense since a +1 of the bits as long for the double would not
necessarly represent the +1 on the double).
So I am setting the increment to
I will give that a shot, seems that it will work fantastically, thanks!
I will keep trolling JIRA then for something I feel I can get my feet wet
with and contribute then.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Jason Fager wrote:
> Longs and Doubles are both 64-bit values and are pretty easily
> conv
Longs and Doubles are both 64-bit values and are pretty easily
convertible. Check out Double.doubleToLongBits and
Double.longBitsToDouble in the JDK; you can also read more about the
details of the conversion and get some pointers to some code in a post
I wrote last year:
http://jasonfager.com/770
