by "Tom Linden" <tom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Feb 3, 2006 at 08:08 AM
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:05:02 GMT, robin <robin_v@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "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?
>
>
Biased binary exponet and suppress the leading bit of the normalized
characteristic.
