Herr @0_Einstein praised and then aesthetically adapted in this recent thread the following code in SCL, but did not see that there is an error.

FUNCTION "Real_To_Dms" : "T_DMS" // Resulting DMS position

  TITLE = Real_To_Dms

  { S7_Optimized_Access := 'TRUE' }

  AUTHOR : 'Mauro Bottizzo'

  VERSION : 0.2

  VAR_INPUT

    rIn : Real; // Angle in degrees

  END_VAR

  ...

  VAR_TEMP

    rAcc1 : Real;

  END_VAR

  BEGIN
  // input must be validated (range-checked) before calling

  IF #rIn >= 0.0 THEN

    #Real_To_Dms.iDegree := DINT_TO_INT(TRUNC(IN := #rIn));

    #rAcc1 := (#rIn - TRUNC_REAL(#rIn)) * 60.0;

    #Real_To_Dms.iMinute := DINT_TO_INT(TRUNC(IN := #rAcc1));

  ELSE // < 0

    #Real_To_Dms.iDegree := DINT_TO_INT(TRUNC(IN := #rIn));

    #rAcc1 := (1 - ABS((#rIn - TRUNC_REAL(#rIn)))) * 60.0;

    IF #rAcc1 > 0.0 THEN

      #Real_To_Dms.iDegree -= 1;

    END_IF;

    #Real_To_Dms.iMinute := DINT_TO_INT(TRUNC(IN := #rAcc1));

  END_IF;

  #rAcc1 := (#rAcc1 - TRUNC_REAL(#rAcc1)) * 60.0;

  #Real_To_Dms.rSecond := #rAcc1;

  RETURN;

END_FUNCTION

Here I am forced to answer myself, and, bear with me, since I do not have decent language skills in the current common idiom, you will also excuse me if I use an automatic translator.

In writing the source code posted in the epigraph, (first post of this thread), I had been inspired by a converter found on the net where it allowed me to test the code I had written.GeoGebra's converter

(Note here that negative decimal angle values are converted with positive and complementary minutes and seconds, with the degree subtracted by one unit.)

After posting the code in the thread of first interest, I sent it to a coworker of mine with whom we share a common library, with just half a line of explanation. The colleague perhaps because he was aero-enthusiastic pointed out to me that the angle conversion was wrong. In the sense that in DMS even minutes and seconds should have been negative. So I also did some more research and actually found that many other sites reported a conversion done differently: angle, minutes and seconds expressed negatively, without complements. Only two converters found on the web gave the result of the previous one already mentioned by GeoGebra.

This new discovery then led me to check why these two different forms of results, and the conclusion (to be brief), was that the two formulas are indeed mathematically equivalent, although one of the two is more complex to read and less intuitive.
And it was here, at this point, that I found the error, by doing broader behavioral verifications of the input data, starting with decimal values varying from '.0000..' up to '.9999..'; my proposed converter when the decimal part of the input data is zero, miscalculates the complement part of the result in degrees and seconds, since it does not decrement the integer part in degrees by unity, but still realizes the complement of degrees and seconds. For example, for an input of -1.0000 instead of returning -1°0'0“, it returns -1°60'60”. So, precisely, it is still wrong.

Now, here I have responded and unraveled at least what had been my provocation with this thread, however, I cannot refrain from seasoning the post with a little bit of sourness. In fact I notice from practically my very first post created in this forum, that by most it is not experienced precisely as a forum, but rather as if it were a help desk. A forum would be a few more things, much more, but it is not experienced at all. (But at the end of the day it is the same feedback I get from the business world as well).
That said, therefore, I make no effort to post the correct code again and again, for the reason that no one cares.

Gustavo Antonio Banchetti Brucatori

Here I am forced to answer myself, and, bear with me, since I do not have decent language skills in the current common idiom, you will also excuse me if I use an automatic translator.

<snip>

Now, here I have responded and unraveled at least what had been my provocation with this thread, however, I cannot refrain from seasoning the post with a little bit of sourness. In fact I notice from practically my very first post created in this forum, that by most it is not experienced precisely as a forum, but rather as if it were a help desk. A forum would be a few more things, much more, but it is not experienced at all. (But at the end of the day it is the same feedback I get from the business world as well).
That said, therefore, I make no effort to post the correct code again and again, for the reason that no one cares.

Hello.

qwazee

As for the original topic you refer to.. I did attempt to open a discussion with you on the original topic. I voiced the opinion that there was a problem with your suggested solution. My wording was probably flat; not explicitly inviting. The intention was to make room to have some discussion. Your time was limited and you could not engage in a discussion. Very understandable since you reported for duty on Monday.

But then this topic appeared. My interpretation is that it is ego driven. At first you targeted my user while pointing to 0_Einstein's post. This 'feels' emotional/personal. Been there. Done that. Got badly burnt.

As to why I confused the two nicknames, I have no explanation. I'm trying to imagine one, but I could also misremember and still be wrong. I'd rather keep quiet about it.