Shouldn't it autopromote to Bignum at that point?
On 8/27/09, Michael Zedeler <mich...@zedeler.dk> wrote:
> Karl Brodowsky wrote:
>> Michael Zedeler schrieb:
>>> Well... maybe. How do you specify the intended precision, then? If I
>>> want the values from 1 to 2 with step size 0.01, I guess that writing
>>> 1.00 .. 2.00
>>> won't be sufficient. Trying to work out the step size by looking at
>>> the precision of things that are double or floats doesn't really
>>> sound so feasible, since there are a lot of holes in the actual
>>> representation, so 1.0001 may become 1.0, yielding very different
>> That is a general problem of floats. We tend to write them in decimal
>> notation, but internally they use a representation which is binary.
>> And it is absolutely not obvious what the "precision" of 1.0001 might be.
>> There could be a data type like "LongDecimal" in Ruby or "BigDecimal"
>> in Java, that actually has a knowlegde of its precision and whose
>> numbers are fractions with a power of 10 as the denominator. But for
>> floats I would only see the interval as reasonably clear. Even a step
>> of 1 is coming with some problems, because an increment of 1 does not
>> have any effect on floating point numbers like 1.03e300 or so.
> Yes. Exactly my point. By the way, do we want to warn if someone writes
> 1e300 .. 1e301 :by(1)
> given that the number implementation yields 1e300 + 1 == 1e300?
Sent from my mobile device
Mark J. Reed <markjr...@gmail.com>