/prog/ - problem with doubles

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 16:34

why this doesn't work???
unsigned double a=1e100;

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 16:54

>>1
becuz ur gay lulz double doesn't have unsigned type XDDDD

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 16:55

You are so retarded that I won't even tell you to go back to stackoverflow, please because I can't do that to Jeff.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 17:08

SPAWHBTC

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 18:12

If i know for sure I'm not storing any negative number in my double, I demand to reclaim the sign bit! I don't want to lose precision for a feature I'm not using!

PLEASE GIVE ME THE POWER TO GET THE SIGN BIT FOR MY OWN PURPOSES YOU FUCKING ANSI-C

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 18:43

>>5
Blame IEEE, not C.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 21:42

>>6
The C standard, which says that there's no such thing as "unsigned double", predates IEEE arithmetic.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 22:07

>>7
The C standard dates to 1989, four years after IEEE 754. Before standardisation there were indeed C dialects that had unsigned doubles.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 22:32

Is this what Prague has come to?

I could name at least THREE!!! things wrong with that variable declaration!

How can three things be wrong with a simple variable declaration?

Please >>1-san, go back to /g/...

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 22:51

>>1,5
Sorry buddy, but most likely your FPU doesn't support it. Literally the physical circuits in your chip are not wired to let you use that sign bit in the mantissa.

Also, sage this bullshit thread.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 0:17

>>10
it could be done in software, but it would be slow as fuck.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 1:11

check out my unsigned doubles:
http://code.google.com/p/acebforth/source/browse/wiki/DoubleArithmetic.wiki?spec=svn109&r=109

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 1:58

I'm not going to leverage my fucking Enterprise /prog/ IDE right now, but

are you talking about ``doubles'' ?

Name: sage 2010-07-23 2:16

Is this what /prog/ has fucking come to or a _0/10 class troll?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 4:36

>>15
0/10
Correct, it's not a troll, he's serious.

Name: air max shoes 2010-07-23 10:55

problem with doubles

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 16:34

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 16:54

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 16:55

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 17:08

5 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 18:12

6 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 18:43

7 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 21:42

8 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 22:07

9 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 22:32

10 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 22:51

11 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 0:17

12 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 1:11

14 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 1:58

15 Name: sage 2010-07-23 2:16

16 Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 4:36

17 Name: air max shoes 2010-07-23 10:55