Re: Classic RW

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:07:54 -0500, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"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 t
he
>decimal point could be used to store numbers such as 1.3467, 281243.3234 an
d
>0.1000, but would round 1.0301789 to 1.0302 and 0.0000654 to 0.0001."

How do you indicate a decimal point in a register? How do you
represent one in memory? Except for floating-point, computer
instructions don't know about decimal points; they operate on
integers.

On 2 Sep 2004 00:37:23 -0700, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:

>Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote
 
>
>You also seem to be using ceil() and then a static adjustment against
>the total which is completely different from 'round and forward' which
>may have given 3.33, 3.34, 3.33.

Right. The price is 3.34 and there is a volume discount of .02. The
effect is the same as rounding.
 
>
>Geez when did you last see an analog time clock that printed the hours
>worked ?
>
>All the ones that I saw just printed the time.

I haven't seen an analog clock in 15 years. They're  electronic and
there's usually no paper card. You just wave an RFID at it.
 
>
>More likely the hours were calculated in some formal way from the
>start and end time such that the worked hours can only one from a set
>of fixed intervals.

In the US, it is determined by State law. This typical one says the
employer MAY round to the NEAREST quarter-hour, but is not required to
do so. Electronic clocks usually return hundredths of an hour.

Moreover, if an employer utilizes time clocks, early or late clock
punching, which results in minor discrepancies, can be disregarded.
Furthermore, generally, the practice of rounding the employees’
starting and finishing time to the nearest five minutes, nearest
one-tenth or quarter of an hour will be accepted, unless such
practice, over time, results in the failure to compensate employees
properly for all the time they have actually worked

http://www.state.vt.us/labind/Wageh...awsbrochure.htm
 
>
>It uses the one specified in the program spec.  This may depend on
>labour laws, business rules, employee (or union) agreements, or a
>range of other things.

Someone writes the program spec.

Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote

>
> Right. The price is 3.34 and there is a volume discount of .02. The
> effect is the same as rounding.

In what way ?

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0409022250.770fb739@posting.google.com...
> Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote
> 
>
> In what way ?

As Mr Wagner stated in a prior post, "Point of Sale systems
handle this like your 'forward'. In this case the price is 3 for $10.
The computer rings up the first and second at 3.34, the third
at 3.32."

I know of no POS systems where the distribution would not
be 3.34, 3.33, and 3.33. I would speculate that Mr Wagner
does not yet grasp certain methods for distributing residual
amounts to provide accurate totals; thus the explanation for
a difference of >0.01 is "volume discount ... same as rounding".

I suspect Mr Wagner's own explanation might provide a more
interesting discussion.