desj@brahms (David desJardins) (11/11/86)
In article <996@wayback.UUCP> arny@wayback.UUCP (Arny B. Engelson) writes: >The above algorithm only works for POSITIVE values of X! For example, if >X = -0.7 this will return -1 instead of 0. The "integer part of a real >number" is a truncate function: Not to restart the flame wars (I hope!), but when this topic has been discussed in the past, the consensus (at least among mathematicians) has been that "round-down" is preferable to "round-toward-zero." At the very least it is not clear that the latter is preferable. -- David desJardins
emery@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Hazel) (11/12/86)
Oops, you got me! OK, first check if the number is positive or negative, and do the 'correct' thing. Obviously, I hadn't thought it all through when I posted that. The context of our discussion (at Siemens) on that was 1. realizing what the language said, and 2. coming up with a strategy to get the integer part that didn't depend on underlying implementation. "The details are left to the reader" (Meaning, I'm too lazy to work them out. Thanks, Ken. Dave Emery