by "robin" <robin_v@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Feb 4, 2006 at 06:17 AM
Tom Linden wrote in message ...
>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.
I'm referring to 1964, when the S/360 was designed.
