Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: double vs single precision
Message-ID: <1033@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 06:23:05 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1033
Posted: Tue Jan 14 06:23:05 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 00:40:10 EST
References: <1333@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1020@turtlevax.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 22


In article <1020@turtlevax.UUCP> ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) writes:
>Just because it agrees with K&R doesn't make it right.  Nearly every
>other programming language states that if you want computations to be
>done at higher precision than any of the operands, then you cast any
>one of them to the higher precision.
>
>This should be done for chars and shorts as well as floats and longs.
>(could cast a long to double for more precision, but not to float)
>
>What's that?  You say it breaks existing code?  The easy solution to
>that is:
>
>#define char	long
>#define short	long
>#define int	long
>#define float	double

This will break a lot more existing code than eliminating the automatic
extension of floats, chars, and shorts will.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108