Quoth Chris Smith cdsm...@gmail.com,
...
I certainly don't agree that wanting the exact value from a floating
point type is a reasonable expectation. The *only* way to recover those
results is to do the math with the decimal or rational values instead of
floating point numbers. You'll get
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:23:20 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
I think it's more than reasonable to expect
[0.1,0.2..0.5] == [0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5]
and that would make everyone happy, wouldn't it?
[0.1,0.2..0.5] isn't the problem. The problem is coming up with
something that not only works for
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 09:23 -0700, Donn Cave wrote:
I think it's more than reasonable to expect
[0.1,0.2..0.5] == [0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5]
and that would make everyone happy, wouldn't it?
But what's the justification for that? It *only* makes sense because
you used short decimal literals.
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 12:36 -0400, Steve Schafer wrote:
[0.1,0.2..0.5] isn't the problem. The problem is coming up with
something that not only works for [0.1,0.2..0.5], but also works for
[0.1,0.2..1234567890.5].
A good rule of thumb: For every proposal that purports to eliminate
having to
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:13:39 -0600, you wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 12:36 -0400, Steve Schafer wrote:
[0.1,0.2..0.5] isn't the problem. The problem is coming up with
something that not only works for [0.1,0.2..0.5], but also works for
[0.1,0.2..1234567890.5].
A good rule of thumb: For
