Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!peer-news.britain.eu.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Gnu Common Lisp HELP!
Message-ID: <DLC3zu.C8K.0.macbeth@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <	<4d61kh$tj@camelot.ccs.neu.edu>> <PARQUIER.96Jan14182219@halles.ilog.fr>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 16:47:54 GMT
Lines: 12

In article <PARQUIER.96Jan14182219@halles.ilog.fr> parquier@halles.ilog.fr (Pierre Parquier) writes:
>wdc>  I concur with Erik Naggum's recommendation that monetary
>wdc>  quantities, and related quantities such as interest rates,
>wdc>  should be represented by exact rational numbers, not inexact
>wdc>  floating point numbers.
>
>I beg to disagree.  CoBOL has addressed this issues for decades (its
>core business, so to speak), and felt no need for rational.  Why?

Does COBOL use decimal floats or binary?

-- jd
