Thanks! That seems to do the trick. So, basically, those numbers are
being multiplied as ints (as opposed to the longs I was expecting)? I
assume the Ls tell the JVM to treat them as longs... is that accurate?
Thanks again for the help.
mark.olive...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks! That seems to do the trick. So, basically, those numbers are
> being multiplied as ints (as opposed to the longs I was expecting)? I
> assume the Ls tell the JVM to treat them as longs... is that accurate?
>
> Thanks again for the help.
You have it right as far as I'm concerned ("bare" numbers are indeed
ints), though I'm sure some Usenet/Java zealot will seize this
opportunity to explain why this simplistic view isn't correct.
Chris Smith - 10 Jan 2006 23:58 GMT
> mark.olive...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Thanks! That seems to do the trick. So, basically, those numbers are
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> ints), though I'm sure some Usenet/Java zealot will seize this
> opportunity to explain why this simplistic view isn't correct.
No, you're exactly right.

Signature
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
Mike Schilling - 11 Jan 2006 02:24 GMT
> mark.olive...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thanks! That seems to do the trick. So, basically, those numbers are
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> ints), though I'm sure some Usenet/Java zealot will seize this
> opportunity to explain why this simplistic view isn't correct.
He'd have to be a zealot/fruitcake, because that's 100% correct.