Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!rutgers!att!ihlpb!nevin1
From: nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Many people's opinions on computer languages
Message-ID: <8780@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Sep 88 23:47:22 GMT
References: <3938@enea.se> <923@l.cc.purdue.edu> <382@quintus.UUCP>  <402@quintus.UUCP> <822@cernvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 15

In article <822@cernvax.UUCP> hjm@cernvax.UUCP (Hubert Matthews) writes:

>On a slightly less ethereal level, if Herman wants a 32 x 32 -> 64 multiply
>instruction, then I suggest that the real problem is not that the language
>doesn't let him specify this particular instruction, but that the language
>doesn't let him specify his data to a sufficiently high degree.

That brings about the question:  What is a sufficiently high degree of
precision?  No matter what limit someone specifies for a given
implementation X, there is always someone who wants greater precision.
-- 
 _ __		NEVIN J. LIBER  ..!att!ihlpb!nevin1  (312) 979-4751  IH 4F-410
' )  )			 Anyone can survive being frozen in liquid nitrogen;
 /  / _ , __o  ____	  it's surviving the *thawing* that counts :-).
/  (_