realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FolderItem.Length Feature Request

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: FolderItem.Length Feature Request
From: Harrie Westphal <harriew at frontiernet dot net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:35:04 -0500
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <47121EA3-985C-4469-94B3-E78A734698C6 at texastowers dot com> <add5d81527a77fb19f165de10bc7c234 at great-white-software dot com> <bcda79c776a3e02bbaef685ba3e542c6 at frontiernet dot net> <e77d7c76f47f8e700e3ac13f5cb06064 at great-white-software dot com>

On Jun 30, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Norman Palardy wrote:

Some other private emails have asked the same thing.
And, you're right, that as long as you use it this way you will probably never exceed the mantissa and are likely to remain using essentially an integer value.

But, using the current size (in my example i) in a calculation with other values, etc is going to result in floating point arithmetic and thereby some kind of cumulative error because of the range that can be represented.

A long integer would avoid any such calculation errors long term.

No argument there. A long integer would be the preferred solution to this problem. I just wanted to make sure that we agreed on a floating point being able to handle the number. As you say, since you are doing other calculations you do have to worry about introducing floating point error. Just had me worried for a minute. Being one of the older guys on the list you have to worry about Alzheimers you know. :-)

=== A Mac addict in Tennessee ===

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>