Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 20:48:13 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <103s1pe$1lq7e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <20250403150210.000020f8@yahoo.com>
 <86selt8lxv.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250428162738.00007c1d@yahoo.com>
 <103j290$3bv4a$1@dont-email.me> <8734bm1eqz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <20250626235916.00003314@yahoo.com> <lGi7Q.55256$Ra5f.13001@fx13.iad>
 <87y0teyrg7.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <103kvst$3tgp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <87tt40znsu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <103qae2$16tu9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103qbag$1aql2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 20:48:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30626afdd2e004b7d43bacfbadd9aefb";
	logging-data="1763566"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dMsIt6Blp2n7qOFb+XLXW"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+mIXhO6JqvLbIsGEyUqLtAw91+c=
In-Reply-To: <103qbag$1aql2$1@dont-email.me>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110

On 29.06.2025 05:18, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 2025-06-28 23:03, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> [ Some technical troubles - in case this post appeared already 30
>>   minutes ago (I don't see it), please ignore this re-sent post. ]
>>
>> On 28.06.2025 02:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 27.06.2025 02:10, Keith Thompson wrote:
> ...
>>>>> BCD uses 4 bits to represent values from 0 to 9.  That's about 83%
>>>>> efficent relative to pure binary.  (And it still can't represent 1/3.)
>>>>
>>>> That's a problem of where your numbers stem from. "1/3" is a formula!
>>>
>>> 1/3 is also a C expression with the value 0.  But what I was
>>> referring to was the real number 1/3, the unique real number that
>>> yields one when multiplied by three.
>>
>> Yes, sure. That was also how I interpreted it; that you meant (in
>> "C" parlance) 1.0/3.0.
> 
> No, it is very much the point that the C expression 1.0/3.0 cannot have
> the value he's talking about [...]

I was talking about the Real Value. Indicated by the formula '1/3'.
When Keith spoke about that being '0' I refined it to '1.0/3.0' to
address this misunderstanding. (That's all to say here about that.)

(For the _main points_ I tried to express I refer you to the longer
post I just posted in reply to Keith's post.)

Janis