warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

[Achim Gratz]

Gary E. Miller writes:
>> They don't.  Integer and floating point constants are different.
>
> But in this case the defines are the reciprocals of each other.  Very
> bad collision.

I was responding to Hal's apparent assertion that NANOSECONDS defined as
1000000000 and 1.e9 were the same number.  They are only after they've
been coerced to the same type, provided that type can represent the
number exactly.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf Blofeld:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds