From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: view/edit large files Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:02:55 +0900 Message-ID: References: <86fxiuw6u7.fsf@lifelogs.com> <86zlgzqudo.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <86k583p96e.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874oz7grs0.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <864oz3nyj8.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1234260201 19613 80.91.229.12 (10 Feb 2009 10:03:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tzz@lifelogs.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 10 11:04:36 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LWpTl-0007HT-Up for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:04:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47415 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LWpSS-0002z4-5f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:03:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LWpSK-0002wa-K7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:03:04 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LWpSJ-0002v4-0a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:03:03 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47623 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LWpSI-0002us-Q4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.193]:60617) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LWpSF-0006EV-72; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:02:59 -0500 Original-Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.46]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n1AA2tLK004816; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:02:55 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from relay21.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.24] [10.29.19.24]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:02:55 +0900 Original-Received: from dhlpc061 ([10.114.112.240] [10.114.112.240]) by relay21.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:02:55 +0900 Original-Received: by dhlpc061 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id A5A4C52E2F8; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:02:55 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:54:34 +0200") Original-Lines: 28 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:108947 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> "floats" can exactly represent integers if the integer quantity fits >> within the mantissa. For an IEEE double, that's 52 bits, which is >> enough for many uses > > Right, but is it enough in this case? I don't know, it all depends on > what kind of time resolution is needed. Also, time values are > frequently used in arithmetic operations that could lose a few low > bits. If it's an integer, and it fits, it's exact -- there is no loss of precision. >> (for an inode number, I'm not sure -- obviously >> it's enough for 32-bit inode numbers, but possibly not some 64-bit >> numbers > > Windows NTFS uses 64-bit numbers for the ``file index'' we use as the > replacement for inode. For traditional style inode numbers, which are allocate sequentially from zero, it doesn't matter; however, for abstract 64-bit quantities for which no guarantees, it wouldn't work. -Miles -- Discriminate, v.i. To note the particulars in which one person or thing is, if possible, more objectionable than another.