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'? 16 10035
On Mar 24, 12:13 am, "DirtyHarry" <kim20...@gmail.comwrote:
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'?
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:
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'?
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" <ki******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
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'?
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:
Is there any particular reason to call 'float' instead of 'real'?
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 napisał(a):
Fortran is the only language I've encountered that used REAL.
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:
"DirtyHarry" <ki******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
>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'?
So if we call a float a real, does that mean we have to call an int a
fake?
I guess the OP is talking about the mathematical term as in "real number",
not the opposite of "fake".
float is more descriptive I believe.
Agreed.
DirtyHarry wrote:
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'?
Counter question: Is there any particular reason to call it 'real' instead
of 'float'?
DirtyHarry wrote:
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'?
float is short for "floatingpoint." double is short for
doubleprecision 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...@tonline.dewrote:
Counter question: Is there any particular reason to call it 'real' instead
of 'float'?
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 a
more accurate description than "real" since not all real numbers are
representable by a floating point number.
neither are all the integers by int...
Giff wrote:
Gianni Mariani ha scritto:
It is a
>more accurate description than "real" since not all real numbers are representable by a floating point number.
neither are all the integers by int...
All integers from INT_MIN to INT_MAX are. For 'float' that is not so.
V

Please remove capital 'A's when replying by email
I do not respond to topposted replies, please don't ask
On Mar 24, 8:58 am, "ma740988" <ma740...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, Rolf Magnus <ramag...@tonline.dewrote:
Counter question: Is there any particular reason to call it 'real' instead
of 'float'?
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.
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.
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.
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:
On Mar 24, 8:58 am, "ma740988" <ma740...@gmail.comwrote:
>On Mar 24, 8:43 am, Rolf Magnus <ramag...@tonline.dewrote:
>>Counter question: Is there any particular reason to call it 'real' instead of 'float'?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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 mathematicalinspired expectations?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Topposting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in email?
"DirtyHarry" worte:
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'?
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 napisał(a):
So if we call a float a real, does that mean we have to
call an int a fake?
unreal :>

SasQ This discussion thread is closed Replies have been disabled for this discussion. Similar topics
3 posts
views
Thread by Marcus 
last post: by

5 posts
views
Thread by Peter Scheurer 
last post: by

3 posts
views
Thread by Mark 
last post: by

8 posts
views
Thread by bearophileHUGS 
last post: by

116 posts
views
Thread by Dilip 
last post: by

23 posts
views
Thread by JDT 
last post: by
 
8 posts
views
Thread by d major 
last post: by

22 posts
views
Thread by Bill Reid 
last post: by
           