Good day everyone. This sounds like a stupid question, but I became
just curious yesterday, and I looked up several textbooks. However, no
textbooks on computer language (that I have ) mentioned this. So I am
asking to you, gurus...

Is there any particular reason to call 'float' instead of 'real'?

On Mar 24, 12:13 am, "DirtyHarry" <kim20...@gmail.comwrote:What you call 'double' - real32?

I'm certainly not well versed in the history of the languages ( I
suspect this dates back to C ) nonetheless, Fortran is the only
language I've encountered that used REAL. Granted, rational,
irrational etc - numbers are approximations of real arithmetic, I
suspect machine precision limitations plays an important role. Beyond
that I'm unsure what the impetus is.

DirtyHarry wrote:float stands for "floating point" as opposed to "fixed point". It is a
more accurate description than "real" since not all real numbers are
representable by a floating point number.

"DirtyHarry" <kim20026@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1174709605.314071.324610@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...So if we call a float a real, does that mean we have to call an int a fake?
float is more descriptive I believe.

DirtyHarry wrote:Because a 'float' is not a real number, but a floating point number.
There's a big difference.

Dnia Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:49:04 -0700, ma740988 napisa³(a):
Pascal used it too ;)
And it's probably the language used formerly by OP, causing
his confusion upon encountering 'float' ;J

--
SasQ

Jim Langston wrote:
I guess the OP is talking about the mathematical term as in "real number",
not the opposite of "fake".
Agreed.

DirtyHarry wrote:
Counter question: Is there any particular reason to call it 'real' instead
of 'float'?

DirtyHarry wrote:float is short for "floating-point." double is short for
double-precision floating point.

--

-- Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com)
Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and
Reference." (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

On Mar 24, 8:43 am, Rolf Magnus <ramag...@t-online.dewrote:
I suspect the OP's thought process reflects what I - perhaps all of us
- was taught in a mathematical sense. In that regard, I'd talk in
terms of integers, real numbers and complex numbers. These are terms
everyone understands including C / C++ programmers. I had a similar
question hen I first encountered 'floats and double'. I'd like to
believe Real32 and Real64 would suffice, but considering C/C++ has
been around for sometime, you chalk it up to 'it is what it is' and
move on.

In the end, the OP could always - worse case - typedef the float/
double to what he/she considers a more meaningful description. That's
the beauty of the language.

Gianni Mariani ha scritto:

It is aneither are all the integers by int...

Giff wrote:All integers from INT_MIN to INT_MAX are. For 'float' that is not so.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

On Mar 24, 8:58 am, "ma740988" <ma740...@gmail.comwrote:A "real" type would have to be able to represent irrational numbers -
which floating point numbers cannot represent, since all floating
point numbers (except for infinity) are rational.
Defining a "real" typedef for float is not going to change the types
of numbers that a float can represent. So the typedef would not change
the fact that a float does not represent real numbers, but the "real"
name could mislead anyone who sees it - into believing that it does.

Greg

* Greg Herlihy:Well. 'int' is rather misleading too. Come to think of it, is there
any type name in a programming language that isn't misleading, when one
thinks of it with mathematical-inspired expectations?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

"DirtyHarry" worte:
My guess is that it originated with the hardware designers. It seemed
descriptive so others that came along just adopted it.
My theory seems to be supported by this link.

http://www.oars.utk.edu/math_archive...pr99/0144.html

Thanks, everyone... Finally I got out of clouds...

Dnia Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:59:12 -0700, Jim Langston napisa³(a):
unreal :>

--
SasQ