Timeline for Game Clock Precision
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1, 2012 at 6:54 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 | |||||
| Sep 23, 2012 at 22:29 | comment | added | Trevor Powell | timeA - timeB + timeB == timeA (and similar simple algebraic operations). Works with integers. Not guaranteed with floats or doubles, just because of the way that floating point numbers work on computers. | |
| Sep 23, 2012 at 20:45 | comment | added | Bruce Dawson | At the recommended range (2^32 and beyond) a double has nanosecond precision, which I would hardly call imprecise. I'm also not clear as to what is "error-prone" about a double. I would claim that by using natural units it is less error prone than, for instance, the 100 ns units of some Windows timers. What is imprecise and error-prone about my suggestion? | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 4:48 | comment | added | House | Agreed. Before his article was edited it seemed that it could go either way. I was surprised that the author promoted the use of floating point, especially with large numbers. Perhaps if he comes back he can answer the "why?" part of the answer. | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 3:26 | history | answered | Trevor Powell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |