>
> memory fades...). Over the years I don't remember running across the 0-99
> idea, however. It is certainly more memory efficient than storing one BCD
> per byte, and maybe a little more computational efficient than storing two
> BCD digits per byte.
>
BCD is almost always implemented with two base-ten digits per byte, though,
so talking about this being more efficient than once BCD per byte is a
little silly.
A quick google search for a name, turned up this sight which refers to it
only as a "base 100 derivation" of BCD.
http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/decifaq5.html#otherenc It also
indicates they are more complicated to work with. I'm not sure why. BCD
addition would be binary addition + 6 for each nibble > decimal 9. With
base 100 it's the same deal, except you add 156 to every byte > 99. And
converting to decimal form would probably be easier because you are working
with byte rather than nibble unites. Maybe the author was speaking from a
hardware/ALU perspective.
~ Daniel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:16:15 EDT