"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:E1Uxf.1208$l03.452@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But the hexadecimal base further meant that the effective length of the
> fraction was essentially 21 bits (single precision) or 53 bits (double
> precision), rather than the superficial 24 or 56, and this was not
> clearly understood at first.
How would you have done it better?
