|
| "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:O%uyf.24$pp1.17@fe11.lga...
> robin wrote:
>
> There was no FORTRAN standard until long afterwards.
IBM set it.
>
> In order to make any sense of your argument, I can only assume that you
> do not know what the words "relevant" and "mantissa" mean. Kindly look
> them up.
The term "mantissa" has been used since the early days of computers
to describe part of floating-point number.
Are you having a bad day?
>
>
> Having trouble with subtraction, are we now?
When I last looked, 27 + 1 + 7 + 1 = 36.
>
>
> Then you were doing unusually undemanding work; plenty of shops had
> major problems.
Research is typically demanding.
You're overlooking, PL/I, which for which z/OS has a recent compiler.
[color=darkred]
>
> Problem state was.
Only the original, not the revised hardware, as I previously stated (below).
>
> I'm sure IBM spent all that money upgrading all those machines without
> payment just for fun.
AFAIK, no-one else followed suite.
[color=darkred]
>
> It is clear that it wasn't a problem for /you/.
It wasn't a problem for anyone in an extensive institution.
> (Or, alternatively, that
> it /was/ a problem, but you didn't audit your results adequately.)
My results were always "audited". So were those of others.
>
> You buy cheap imitations, you get cheap imitations.
I didn't buy anything. But I would point out that those
"cheap" systems had superior real-time performance, with
multiple resister sets and processor states for handling
interrupts.
>
> They did. In 1967,
No they didn't. I was referring to clones in which the guard digit
on d.p. was NEVER provided. [see above]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
Still no instance?
[color=darkred]
Still no answer?
|
|