[Greg Ewing] > But they're going to have to learn that there's something > other than decimal in order to understand why they should > be using this fixed thingy in the first place, instead > of using floats. I don't think you'll be doing them any > favours by using terminology that obscures the difference. We were talking about the name of a hypothetical builtin function, not about documentation terminology. If you want to presume that users are idiots as well as simply ignorant, then fixed_point_decimal() is what you want. "decimal" leaves out the vital distinction between fixed and floating semantics, which is more important to "good to the last penny" results than the distinction between binary and decimal. A short name simply can't capture all that's relevant (and I don't care). > There's a precedent for this in SQL, which has a type > called DECIMAL. Now, why do you think they called it that > and not something blander like NUMBER? You can't take any useful lessons from SQL here. Most variants of SQL have both DECIMAL and NUMERIC types, usually aliases, sometimes subtly different.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4