Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Why - the 1/10 of second is not exact anyway (unless you happen to
>>have an atomic clock in an appropriate physical enviroment attached to
>>your machine). A double's mantissa is better than your typical oscillator.
>
>While it may not be correct, at lea
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> While it may not be correct, at least it's exact. If we go with an inexact
> representation, we run the risk of accumulating errors and eventually
> ending up with a number that's both inexact and incorrect.
>
> Dan Sugalski the even samurai
Why n
At 08:18 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >At 06:16 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> >>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >>As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to
> >> >>run out of precision
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 06:16 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >>As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to
>> >>run out of precision in double - that is forty something bits of mantissa.
>> >>Th
At 06:16 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to
> >>run out of precision in double - that is forty something bits of mantissa.
> >>That is more precision than you have in the real
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to
>>run out of precision in double - that is forty something bits of mantissa.
>>That is more precision than you have in the real world.
>
>It's not precision, it's resolution. What do you
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 09:34 PM 8/5/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote:
> > >>All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use
> > >>floating point numbers to ret
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote:
> >>All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use
> >>floating point numbers to return as much precision as the platform
> >>supports. Al
At 09:34 PM 8/5/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote:
> >>All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use
> >>floating point numbers to return as much precision as the platform
> >>supports.
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote:
>>All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use
>>floating point numbers to return as much precision as the platform
>>supports. All functions that take time values as arguments should
>>
At 09:06 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 07:21 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > >Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Theoretically, we'd like to make subs run as fast as ops.
> > >I'd say that the distinction between subs
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 07:21 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
> >Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Theoretically, we'd like to make subs run as fast as ops.
> >I'd say that the distinction between subs and ops should be dropped
> >completely. Ops can be used
At 07:21 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Theoretically, we'd like to make subs run as fast as ops.
>
>I'd say that the distinction between subs and ops should be dropped
>completely. Ops can be used as subs, subs as ops. The only
>distinction in
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Theoretically, we'd like to make subs run as fast as ops.
I'd say that the distinction between subs and ops should be dropped
completely. Ops can be used as subs, subs as ops. The only
distinction in the way either is used.
We may need a better way to de
At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote:
>All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use
>floating point numbers to return as much precision as the platform
>supports. All functions that take time values as arguments should
>work for fractional seconds if the platform su
Graham Barr writes:
: On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 11:50:10AM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
: > On 2 Aug 2000, Gisle Aas wrote:
: >
: > > =head1 PERL5 PORTABILITY
: > >
: > > Calls to time() could be transformed to int(time()) when converting
: > > perl5 programs to perl6.
: >
: > Unless there's a:
: >
Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well theres a difference there when you look at the op tree. That is a call
> to a sub, whereas otherwise it is a op.
Isn't that an internals issue?
-- Johan
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 11:50:10AM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2000, Gisle Aas wrote:
>
> > =head1 PERL5 PORTABILITY
> >
> > Calls to time() could be transformed to int(time()) when converting
> > perl5 programs to perl6.
>
> Unless there's a:
>
>use HiRes::Time qw(time);
>
> in e
On 2 Aug 2000, Gisle Aas wrote:
> =head1 PERL5 PORTABILITY
>
> Calls to time() could be transformed to int(time()) when converting
> perl5 programs to perl6.
Unless there's a:
use HiRes::Time qw(time);
in effect!
-sam
=head1 TITLE
Higher resolution time values
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Gisle Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2000-08-02
Version: 0.01
Mailing List: perl6-language
Number: TBD
=head1 ABSTRACT
All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use
floating point numbers t
20 matches
Mail list logo
