Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!pyramid!infmx!aland
From: aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Informix 4gl - no integer arithmetic???
Summary: am I really out of line here?
Message-ID: <463@infmx.UUCP>
Date: 24 Sep 88 05:38:28 GMT
References: <466@pan.UUCP> <410@infmx.UUCP> <468@pan.UUCP> <5876@columbia.edu> <474@pan.UUCP>
Organization: Informix Software Inc., Menlo Park, CA.
Lines: 46

In article <474@pan.UUCP>, jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes:
> 
> My original posting on this topic was intended to point out to present and
> prospective users of Informix 4GL that there is no integer arithmetic in
> this "programming language".  The followup from "Dr. Scump" at Informix did

  Wrong.  There is integer arithmetic.  What s/he is talking about is integer
  *division* given the operator "/". [E3]  I4GL retains remainder accuracy
  within an expression, just like COBOL (More on this later).  

  (The above statement should not be taken as an endorsement of COBOL, which
  can prove fatal in vnews :-] :-]).

> not offer a solution to my posting; it made a lame attempt to justify what
> they have done, and it included an extremely misleading example that was
> supposed to show that C does the same thing.  The example specifically
> included a floating point number, which of course caused the entire
> expression to be evaluated in floating point.

  Wrong.  [E3.5]   Not floating point, *decimal*.  As I pointed out in an
  earlier posting, this evaluation is clearly documented.

> The reply further claimed the C is the "only major language" that does
> not promote integers to floats in arithmetic evaluations.  Well, I can

  Huh?

> name a few "minor" languages that don't, such as Pascal, Fortran, Modula-2,
> and Basic.  There are plenty more.
                                                   ^^^^^^
  Wrong-o.  [E4]  Pascal has a separate "div" operator which does this.
  This is not the same as the "/" operator, which s/he used in the example.

> If anyone is going to apologize, I think it should be "Dr. Scump", for
> trying to intentionally mislead the readers of this group.
> jw

  Is the opinion that I am "intentionally misleading the readers of this 
  group" shared by *anyone* else?  If so, I'll stop posting rather than
  be a detriment to the newsgroup.

-- 
 Alan S. Denney  |  Informix Software, Inc.  |  {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland
 Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone.  If I am caught or killed,
             the secretary will disavow any knowledge of my actions.
 Santos' 4th Law: "Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting *dirty* for"