This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
OT: Re: Proposal
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Subject: OT: Re: Proposal
- From: Michael Matz <matzmich at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 03:31:33 +0200 (MET DST)
- cc: Frank Klemm <pfk at fuchs dot offl dot uni-jena dot de>, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Hi,
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > BILLION won't expand to what you think. As for UK notation, I'm
> > > British and I can't think of the last time I've seen a billion have 12
> > > zeroes. In fact, I think the only time it occurs is when people are
> > > comparing the claimed British and American forms :-)
> > >
> > A billion has no zeros: 1.e+12
>
> I think that what Neil meant is:
> % units billion
> Definition: 1e9 = 1e+09
May be for your country. E.g. germany has billion==1e12 (we have mi-,
bi-, tri-, quadri- and quinti- as first parts and -llion, and -lliard(e)
as second parts alternating. I.e million==1e6, milliard(e)==1e9,
billion==1e12, billiarde=1e15 ... quintilliarde==1e33) for those, who are
interested ;-)
Given that a million is 1e6 in both countries, and a _bi_llion is somehow
two times a m(ono)illion, and 1e9 is neither the double of 1e6 nor has
twice as much zeros, whereas 1e12 has, I find our definition more logical.
But then again I may be biased ;)
Ciao,
Michael.