Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!cernvax!pan!jw
From: jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Informix 4gl - no integer arithmetic???
Message-ID: <488@pan.UUCP>
Date: 29 Sep 88 23:27:07 GMT
References: <466@pan.UUCP> <410@infmx.UUCP> <468@pan.UUCP> <5876@columbia.edu> <474@pan.UUCP> <463@infmx.UUCP>
Reply-To: jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson)
Organization: Adasoft AG, Solothurn, Switzerland
Lines: 73

In article <463@infmx.UUCP> aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) writes:
>In article <474@pan.UUCP>, jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes:
>> 
>  Wrong.  There is integer arithmetic.  What s/he is talking about is integer
>  *division* given the operator "/". [E3]  I4GL retains remainder accuracy
>  within an expression, just like COBOL (More on this later).  

The single most important factor that sets apart integer arithmetic is
truncation in division.  Other differences are a consequence of difference
in precision, not of the type of variables involved.

>> The example specifically
>> included a floating point number, which of course caused the entire
>> expression to be evaluated in floating point.
>
>  Wrong.  [E3.5]   Not floating point, *decimal*.  As I pointed out in an
>  earlier posting, this evaluation is clearly documented.

My reference to "The example" was to the example in *his* followup, which
was a C program, and therefore contained exactly what I said - a floating
point number.  If "Dr. Scump" doesn't understand the difference, it is
not my problem.

>  Wrong-o.  [E4]  Pascal has a separate "div" operator which does this.
>  This is not the same as the "/" operator, which s/he used in the example.

The point is still valid.  Pascal has a means of obtaining integer division.
So does Basic, C, Modula-2, and any number of other programming languages.
Informix 4gl does not.  I don't care what operator is used.  If Informix
will give me a different operator that will yield integer division, I will
very happily use it.

>  Is the opinion that I am "intentionally misleading the readers of this 
>  group" shared by *anyone* else?  If so, I'll stop posting rather than
>  be a detriment to the newsgroup.

Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter.  I have been attacked, both
publicly and privately, for being rude, inconsiderate, and unfair to both
Informix in general and "Dr. Scump" in particular.  I am guilty, at least
in regards to "Dr. Scump"; there is some (small) chance that he was/is
making a sincere effort to be helpful in his original response to my
posting about integer arithmetic, and was not simply trying to cover up
a serious deficiency in the Informix product.  If that is the case, then
I apoplogize.

However, given that it is now very well established that there is in fact
no integer arithmetic (or integer division, if you really feel it necessary
to say it this way), and that Cobol is the only example he has been able to
come up with of another language that doesn't (by the way, I'm taking his
word on this, which is probably foolish, but I have judiciously avoided
cobol for the past 18 years, so I don't know if it does or does not have
a special operator for integer division), it looks pretty clear to me that
my point is proven, and his past and present comments are excuses and
attempted cover-up.

Also, "Dr. Scump" now seems to be getting his jollies by numbering what
he perceives as errors in my postings.  As of this followup, he is up
to 4, none of which have in fact been errors.  Posting edited copies of
my originals, in such a way as to obscure the meaning of the oringal, or
claiming that something is "fixed in the current version", when in fact
I have the same version and it is obviously not fixed, doesn't cut it.

I didn't mean to start a war by posting about Informix problems.  I have
said before that I would be very happy to see that I am wrong, in any or
all of these postings, because I have to use Informix 4gl in developing
an application, and these are all real problems that I am finding as I
go.  Solutions to them would make my life a lot easier, and my work a lot
better.  So far, only one of my postings has been proven wrong, based on
my misreading of the 4gl manual.  I have already gone back and changed
the programs in which that was used, and have benefitted from it.  If
there are others, I'm ready.

jw