Re: BUG! Erratic for loop behavior
- Posted by Dan Moyer <DANIELMOYER at prodigy.net> Mar 23, 2002
- 481 views
off the top of my head: change the vars to sequence, check for '.', count how many to right of '.', multiply by 10 to the how many for the MAX number in any var? Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Bensler" <bensler at mail.com> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com> Subject: RE: BUG! Erratic for loop behavior > > for i = var1 to var 2 by var3 do > end for > > how much should the vars be multiplied by? > > Chris > > Dan Moyer wrote: > > Andy, > > > > Although I assume this is at least obvious, you could just do this: > > > > for i = 10*31.1 to 10*34.2 do > > ?i/10 > > end for > > > > Same for whatever max "level" of floating point you have, ie, if *any* > > value > > goes out to .001,multiply all by 1000, then divide, etc. > > > > Maybe there's some good reason that doesn't occur to me offhand why this > > won't work? > > > > Dan Moyer > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andy Serpa" <renegade at earthling.net> > > To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com> > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:19 AM > > Subject: BUG! Erratic for loop behavior > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > The output of this loop: > > > ------------------------------ > > > for i = 9.4 to 10.0 by .1 do > > > ? i > > > end for > > > ------------------------------ > > > stops at 10, as expected. > > > > > > > > > The output of this loop: > > > ------------------------------ > > > for i = 31.1 to 34.2 by .1 do > > > ? i > > > end for > > > ------------------------------ > > > stops at 34.1 (!), NOT as expected. > > > > > > > > > The output of this loop: > > > ------------------------------ > > > for i = 131.1 to 134.2 by .1 do > > > ? i > > > end for > > > ------------------------------ > > > stops at 134.2, as expected. > > > > > > > > > The output of this loop: > > > ------------------------------ > > > for i = 60.0 to 64.5 by .1 do > > > ? i > > > end for > > > ------------------------------ > > > stops at 64.4, NOT as expected. > > > > > > > > > I've verified this on exw.exe & ex.exe, as well as translated to C. It > > > looks like an outright bug to me. > > > > > > > >