Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Parsing timestamps? Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 16:23:03 GMT Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien Lines: 22 Message-ID: <2025Jul16.182303@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> References: <1f433fabcb4d053d16cbc098dedc6c370608ac01@i2pn2.org> <954cf34891bed0677fd79af0b676c50613dc1443@i2pn2.org> <2025Jul13.110141@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2d6811168025a74b3ff51a78efb75947d36a0146@i2pn2.org> <2025Jul14.080413@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <063d4a116fb394a776b1e9313f9903cf@www.novabbs.com> <2025Jul14.095004@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2025Jul16.132504@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:30:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="585c480a77ea571ad015f54f65ea6703"; logging-data="872988"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RVdxONO2RtXEYdzCka+Ky" Cancel-Lock: sha1:jZMmw1DcqXM0mGHpb+DQMkbkqYQ= X-newsreader: xrn 10.11 minforth writes: >Am 16.07.2025 um 13:25 schrieb Anton Ertl: >> I did not do any accuracy measurements, but I did performance >> measurements >YMMV but "fast but wrong" would not be my goal. ;-) I did test correctness with cases where roundoff errors do not play a role. As mentioned, the RECursive balanced-tree sum (which is also the fastest on several systems and absolutely) is expected to be more accurate in those cases where roundoff errors do play a role. But if you care about that, better design a test and test it yourself. It will be interesting to see how you find out which result is more accurate when they differ. - anton -- M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html New standard: https://forth-standard.org/ EuroForth 2025 CFP: http://www.euroforth.org/ef25/cfp.html