Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 23:18:40 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <103qbag$1aql2$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 05:18:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b81feec9ab7fc80332d882c7877d22f";
	logging-data="1403554"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19iPUIPST3ZQXx2D1N7XKsovsCsvamSXCI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yZ0a9PYnnS8myRKA0jwO/asFX1s=
In-Reply-To: <103qae2$16tu9$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

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 (except in the unlikely event that
FLT_RADIX is a multiple of 3).