3 ms·

Do you see how you will end up reimplementing a fixed point decimal number type?

• mikeash 10y ago
  Of course. An integer that represents a number of some subdivision of your nominal "one" unit is a fixed-point decimal number type. They're two names for the same thing. But the other commenter was discussing arbitrary precision arithmetic libraries, not fixed-point decimals.
  • danbruc 10y ago
    Of course. An integer that represents a number of some subdivision of your nominal "one" unit is a fixed-point decimal number type. They're two names for the same thing. And an array of single precision floats is a zero-terminated UTF-8 encoded string. Using an actual fixed point decimal number type is still preferable over going straight to the underlying integer, even if it is only for the easier to read source code with decimal points where they belong instead of having to perform the transformation in your head while reading. But the other commenter was discussing arbitrary precision arithmetic libraries, not fixed-point decimals. Fair point.
    • mikeash 10y ago
      I take your point, but the nitpicker in me (some might say there's nothing else in there) wants to point out that an array of floats is highly unlikely to be valid UTF-8. If your language of choice has a good fixed-point decimal library, or you can switch to one that does, then I agree that would definitely be the superior solution.
      • danbruc 10y ago
        I take your point, but the nitpicker in me (some might say there's nothing else in there) wants to point out that an array of floats is highly unlikely to be valid UTF-8. I was afraid of that response and thought about using an integers array and ASCII but it is so nicely abstruse, I could not resist.