× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Hi Booth -

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:55:35 -0500, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

It worries me when I see these kinds of precision expected in what
appears to be fairly large number.

It looks like minutes are being divided by 60 to give fractional hours,
and then the number of calls are being divided by that answer? Would it
make more accuracy to do the math the other way around? Divide the
calls by the big number, and then convert that by dividing by 60? Or
divide in the other direction and give an answer of average minutes/call?

You're right. The double divide is just asking for problems because
of the intermediate result of @time / 60 (unless you put it inside a
%DECH as Scott suggested).

Since a divide by a divide is a multiply, personally I would make it
eval(h) @callshr = (@calls * 60) / @time
which eliminates the intermediate divide completely but still gives
calls per hour.

Ken
http://www.kensims.net/
Opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent the views
of my employer or anyone in their right mind.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.