RE: [boost] Re: Fixed-decimal partial review

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-21 13:54:33

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Beman Dawes
| Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 7:11 PM
| To: Boost mailing list; boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Fixed-decimal partial review

| If "as accurate as possible" is the requirement, floating point is probably
| best. But sometimes in business and industry a specific accuracy in terms
| of decimal places and rounding modes is the requirement. Fixed-point is
| better for those situations, IMO.
|
| --Beman

IMHO what is REALLY required is a type which includes the precision/accuracy -
or the currently correct term - UNCERTAINTY of the value. In the case of ALL
measurements, the 'exactness' is an illusion. Although money appears to be
exact, the moment you do anything apart from add and subtract, even that ceases.
And as for corporate accounts exact to the nearest cent - well we all know the
uncertainty of those!

The interval library might provide the foundation for an uncertain class.

Alas persuading people of the value of knowing uncertainty may take some time
:-(

"It ain't what a man doesn't know that makes him a fool,
but what he does know that ain't so."
Josh Billings, Complete work of JB (1919)
(quoted in Penquin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations (1986)

Paul

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
Mobile mailto:pabristow_at_[hidden]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]