Re: (default) Real->Rat precision should match what compiler uses for literals

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, yary wrote: > Or instead of 1/2**(32 or 64), re-asking these questions about epsilon: > > " Why so large? > >Why not zero? " > > What's justification for using 1/100,000 vs. something smaller vs. 0 "max > possible precision?" > The

Re: (default) Real->Rat precision should match what compiler uses for literals

The point of Rats is making Perl6 more correct and less surprising in common cases, such as $ perl6 > 1.1+2.2 3.3 > 1.1+2.2 == 3.3 True > 1.1+2.2 != 3.3 False vs any language using binary floating-point arithmetic DB<1> p 1.1+2.2 3.3 DB<2> p 1.1+2.2 == 3.3 DB<3> p 1.1+2.2 != 3.3 1 In