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
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
> havi
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 litera
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 [0.1
Quoth Chris Smith ,
...
> 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 the rounding err
