Printable View
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...hreadid=148302
I'm not trying to 'diss' Arc, but how can someone who has developed a control like the one he says he has, not know the most basic variable info...??
Now that I've said that, I probably explained it wrong...:p
Well, it looks like Arc isn't the only one who needs to learn a little bit about Singles and Doubles ;)Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Double is to Single as Long is to Integer.
Double and Single are both floating-point variables. The double can hold numbers twice as big. If you make them sufficiently large, they start displaying in scientific notation, and I think you may lose a small amount of accuracy.
For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, Doubles can hold numbers much bigger than twice the maximum value in Singles, as nishantp explained in that other thread.
Arc sounded pretty smart...now all he has to do is learn to use MSDN:D
If you use a log2 scale then doubles are twice as big as singles. Perhaps you are too constrained by the belief that size is absolute whereas it is actually relative ;) ...Quote:
For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, Doubles can hold numbers much bigger than twice the maximum value in Singles, as nishantp explained in that other thread.
Is it really? Well speaking in absolute relative terms, Doubles are still much more than twice the size of singles...
well, to develop a listbox control you don't really need any variables...Quote:
I'm not trying to 'diss' Arc, but how can someone who has developed a control like the one he says he has, not know the most basic variable info...??
And as I rebutted in the other thread, I actually meant that the storage allocation is twice as much. I believe that is the case.Quote:
Originally posted by Tygur
Well, it looks like Arc isn't the only one who needs to learn a little bit about Singles and Doubles ;)
For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, Doubles can hold numbers much bigger than twice the maximum value in Singles, as nishantp explained in that other thread.
I was aware that the actual numbers represented in said storage are somewhat more separate than a value of 2, which would imply only 1 extra bit in storage allocation.
Fair enough. Just make your message a little clearer in the future :)Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
And as I rebutted in the other thread, I actually meant that the storage allocation is twice as much. I believe that is the case.
I was aware that the actual numbers represented in said storage are somewhat more separate than a value of 2, which would imply only 1 extra bit in storage allocation.
By the way, how is this (Arc's question) proof that VB isn't a good programming language?