??? 01/12/05 23:16 Read: times |
#84892 - Yes, but what about *real* ?! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Steve M. Taylor said:
Convenience. Ease of debugging. Development speed.Enhanced data confidence. Maybe so, but that doesn't answer the question, viz, what makes floating-point more "real"?! |
Topic | Author | Date |
floating point calculations & eprom prog | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Look for a | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Floating point math | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Oh please, not again! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Appropriate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Floating point speed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
why floating point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
FP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why Floating point indeed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
what's real about it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
eg | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
nothing more real | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes, but what about *real* ?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
more human readable ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
display real, of course | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
FP![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Fixed point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
eval? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
No FP in Keil Eval! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Compiler or Assembler? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why assembler? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why floating-point? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Link | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
ISP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Please, more details! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Floating or Fixed ? | 01/01/70 00:00 |