Re: Strange result with exponents...

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hans wrote:
> | 2) As I've said before, IEEE float will not give you an exact result
> | anyways, so of course it should be avoided for monetary calculations.
> |

jt wrote:
> Meant to get back to this-un.  Points 1 and 3 are Very well-taken.  My
> problem is with point #2:
>
> "Apparently" (to me obviously), the IEEE spec is a "joke" because it's so
> out-dated.  And fixed-in-stone standards that don't change with modern
> computing end up working AGAINST the computer industry.  Plus, I doubt if a
> lot of these kinds-a Standards Bodies even HAD any awareness of the 400
> platform to begin with.

James: As I'm sure I mentioned before, IEEE float works perfectly well 
for its intended domain, which is scientific calculations. It may be a 
joke to you, but it's not a joke for the thousands (millions?) of 
scientists who use it every day in their programs. But in that domain, 
17 digits of precision is generally overkill anyways.

IEEE float was never really intended to be used for financial 
calculations. Furthermore, using floating point to represent and compute 
financial amounts may well violate local laws, if not general accounting 
rules. (Check with the accountants in the countries where you do business.)

That said, there are proposals for a decimal floating point format. You 
can find a description of one at 
<http://www.share.org/proceedings/sh98/data/S0018.PDF>. At present, I 
don't know if there are any serious plans to implement that spec in any 
hardware, but I know that one of the authors of that spec is pushing 
hard for it.

Cheers! Hans