Timeline for Is there a programming language where 1/6 behaves the same as 1.0/6.0?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16, 2012 at 19:27 | history | edited | Keith Thompson | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 84 characters in body |
| Aug 9, 2012 at 19:42 | comment | added | Keith Thompson | I originally wrote 1.666666..., which is clearly wrong. My lame excuse is that the Pascal test program I wrote printed 1.6666666666666667E-0001 | |
| Aug 9, 2012 at 19:40 | history | edited | Keith Thompson | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Musings on why C is the way it is |
| Aug 9, 2012 at 19:19 | history | edited | Keith Thompson | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Fix typo |
| Aug 9, 2012 at 18:46 | comment | added | Martin Beckett | Pascal - getting the details right (give or take a factor of 10) | |
| Aug 9, 2012 at 18:24 | comment | added | AProgrammer | And then Algol was an improvement over its successors (in the number of which both C and Pascal stand). | |
| Aug 9, 2012 at 17:44 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | Pascal. Getting details right before C got them wrong.™ | |
| Aug 9, 2012 at 17:41 | history | answered | Keith Thompson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |