Re: Classic RW

There are TONS of "mathmatics" dictionaries that can explan (and document) t
hat
"fixed point" and "integer" are two very DIFFERENT terms (an integer is - al
ways
I think, but am not positive - a fixed point number; but a fixed point numbe
r is
NOT an integer).  See for example:

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/integer

"An inductive definition of an integer is a number that is either zero or an
integer plus or minus one. An integer is a number with no fractional part. I
f
written as a fixed-point number, the part after the decimal (or other base)
point will be zero."

Also,
http://www.campusprogram.com/refere...ed_point_1.html

"In computing, a fixed-point number representation is a real data type for a
number that has a fixed number of digits after the decimal (or binary or
hexadecimal) point. For example, a fixed-point number with 4 digits after th
e
decimal point could be used to store numbers such as 1.3467, 281243.3234 and
0.1000, but would round 1.0301789 to 1.0302 and 0.0000654 to 0.0001."

while (same general source
http://www.campusprogram.com/refere...in/integer.html

"They are also known as the whole numbers, although that term is also used t
o
refer only to the positive integers (with or without zero)."

***

However, possibly the most relevant (for CLC) definition for "integer" is th
at
used in the COBOL Standard itself. See the section "
5.4 Integer operands" on page 20 of the 2002 Standard.

NOTE:
In answer to one of the earlier posts, I certainly agree that EVERY "fixed
point" number can be expressed as an integer with a SCALING factor (i.e. tim
es a
"power of 10).  However, that is QUITE a different thing than saying that ev
ery
fixed point number *is* an integer (which it simply isn't in either the COBO
L,
number theory, or general computing definition of the two terms)



--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
 news:v2h7j0dqgqga79u7ufe1nlrtnrfoav4944@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:23:41 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
> <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> They are integers. If you don't think so, post some evidence to the
> contrary.