I am stuck with floats (doubles, to be precise) comparison.
Machine 'real-numbers' such as floats and doubles should be thought of
as intervals or neighborhoods near the mathematical number. Tests for
'equality' of machine reals should never use machine equality '=='
operators. 'Equality'
On 30 Jun 2010, at 15:56, Frederick Bartram wrote:
Hope that I am not being too pedantic but imo you should never test for
'equality' ('==') when using machine real data types.
Sometimes you really do want binary equivalence, and in that case == may be the
right thing to use. Normally,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Alastair Houghton
alast...@alastairs-place.net wrote:
On 30 Jun 2010, at 15:56, Frederick Bartram wrote:
Hope that I am not being too pedantic but imo you should never test for
'equality' ('==') when using machine real data types.
Sometimes you really do
On 30 Jun 2010, at 17:37, Michael Ash wrote:
While we're being pedantic, note that == is not always the same as
binary equivalence. For example, 0.0 == -0.0, and x != x when x =
NAN.
That's a good point. I spoke inaccurately.
Using == can make sense when you know that your values are exact
