[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: andyw@ibeam.ht.intel.com*Subject*: bounded, infinite ranges?*From*: Stavros Macrakis <macrakis@osf.org>*Date*: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 16:04:12 -0400*Cc*: info-dylan@cambridge.apple.com*In-reply-to*: Andy Wilson's message of Tue, 20 Oct 92 14:16 PDT <m0mhQvy-00018uC@ishark.intel.com>*Sender*: macrakis@osf.org

Andyw says: ...Naively, one might assume that (size range) could be defined as (/ (- (top range) (bottom range)) (by range)). However, since floats are in fact represented finitely, if the "by:" step size for range is sufficiently small there might well be too few allowable bit patterns to represent the theoretical number of intervals in the range. The elements of the range should be in general calculated as from+I*by rather than as ((from+by)+by)+by+... This also guarantees that you don't get killed by round-off. On the other hand, it does mean that more than one element of the range may have the same value.

**References**:**Re: bounded, infinite ranges?***From:*andyw@ibeam.ht.intel.com (Andy Wilson)

- Prev by Date:
**Re: contractual programming** - Next by Date:
**Re: contractual programming** - Previous by thread:
**Re: bounded, infinite ranges?** - Next by thread:
**Re: bounded, infinite ranges?** - Index(es):