From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-02 14:33:29
Could we consider removing the word "serialization" from this subject
here? This is really about rendering floating point numbers between
binary and decimal representations. And for better worse, serialization
on this list has come to mean something else.
Also, a real contribution could be made to address the variety of
NaN's and how they should be rendered in different systems. This
is currently undefined and will create problems porting data between
programs compiled with diferent compilers and/or libraries.
Paul A Bristow wrote:
> IMO The real issue here is not whether round-tripping should work,
> but that input from a long enough decimal digit string should
> always give you the nearest floating-point representation.
> For float this is true, and for double is almost (but not quite) true.
> Paul A Bristow
> Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
> +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Sebastian Redl
>> Sent: 02 May 2006 15:55
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost]
>> [serialization]Serialisation/deserialisationoffloating-point values
>> Paul A Bristow wrote:
>> >The Standard is imprecise on this issue, but I feel it is a
>> very poor
>> >do that such a bizarre small range of values should be wrong.
>> >Feels like an off-by-one rounding bug to me.
>> I tend to agree with the MS engineers here. I've found out
>> only yesterday that the FPU/math library is not entirely
>> deterministic in some calculations (including square roots
>> and trigonometry, typical 3d stuff), so I think worrying
>> about serialization/deserialization is useless.
>> Sebastian Redl
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk