I think it's correct because the next value in the range would exceed PI. If you try 0:pi/101:pi, you would get 3.14 again.
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 5:59:10 AM UTC+8, Peter Simon wrote: > > The first three results below are what I expected. The fourth result > surprised me: > > julia> (0:pi:pi)[end] > 3.141592653589793 > > julia> (0:pi/2:pi)[end] > 3.141592653589793 > > julia> (0:pi/3:pi)[end] > 3.141592653589793 > > julia> (0:pi/100:pi)[end] > 3.1101767270538954 > > Is this behavior correct? > > Version info: > julia> versioninfo() > Julia Version 0.3.0-prerelease+2703 > Commit 942ae42* (2014-04-22 18:57 UTC) > Platform Info: > System: Windows (x86_64-w64-mingw32) > CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 860 @ 2.80GHz > WORD_SIZE: 64 > BLAS: libopenblas (USE64BITINT DYNAMIC_ARCH NO_AFFINITY) > LAPACK: libopenblas > LIBM: libopenlibm > > > --Peter > >
