This Might Backfire on Me, But... [modified]
-
The reasons behind using floating point numbers are many (and irrelevant). The fact that we needed a viable comparison WAS relevant. The original code was written in 1984 in GWbasic, and had gone through several conversions through compiled basic, and Turbo Pascal before finally landing in C++. At no point was a decimal type available, and the original data files were using doubles when I took over the code in 1988. The code it was used in was recursively calculating a value using what-if scenarios, and often, it came down to trying to resolve 0.00001 dollars. Because of the nature of the calculations AND double data types, I had no choice but to use an
AlmostEqualmethod. I guess you shouldn't try to read things into what was in the article. Beyond all of what I just said, this thread isn't about the article - it's about an invalid 1 vote for the article. If you feel the need to discuss said article, you should restrict your comments to the article's message area..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
this thread isn't about the article - it's about an invalid 1 vote for the article
I guess I wouldn't know since you had some people help you remove and obscure what they had to say before I had a chance to read it. For all I know, they might have made a good and valid point against your article/technique. Who knows since it has been "removed".
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If you feel the need to discuss said article, you should restrict your comments to the article's message area.
For you as well. Requesting everyones help in the lounge to fight a battle in one of your article's message areas? Come on now.
-
I need help rejecting a 1 vote on an article I wrote several years ago. The reason given for the vote was "m". Yes that's right, just a single letter. It looks like the "give us a reason for voting 1 or 2" thing isn't really working out very well, because the only way to eradicate an invalid vote is hoping enough people notice it and help to fix it. Maybe we need a "Report this message" option for articles... Here's the article: Reliable Floating Point Equality Comparison[^] BTW, I discovered this 1 vote by using CPAM3. :) EDIT ========================= Mission Accomplished (where's G.W.Bush when you need him?). I would like to thank those who participated for their timely response to my little crisis.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001modified on Sunday, December 12, 2010 8:56 AM
-
I certainly don't want votes that are undeserved, but Henry obviously thinks I can pretty much do no wrong. Of course, I don't know if it's a deep-seated (and understandable) respect for my efforts that gives him that impression, or if it's fear that I might exact some sort of firearm-related reprisal if he doesn't automatically vote everything I do here with a 5. :)
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
