On 27/09/2011, at 6:50 AM, Chris Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 18:53 +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
If you do [0.1, 0.2 .. 0.3] it should leave out 0.3. This is floating point numbers and if you don't understand them, then don't use them. The current behaviour of .. for floating point is totally broken, IMO.
I'm curious, do you have even a single example of when the current behavior doesn't do what you really wanted anyway? Why would you write an upper bound of 0.3 on a list if you don't expect that to be included in the result?
Because upper bounds are *UPPER BOUNDS* and are NOT as a rule included in the result. If you write [0,2..9] you - DO expect 0 in the result - DON'T expect 9 in the result - would be outraged if 10 were in the result. You would "write an upper bound of 0.3 on a list" if you wanted the list to be bounded above by 0.3.
I understand that you can build surprising examples with stuff that no one would really write... but when would you really *want* the behavior that pretends floating point numbers are an exact type and splits hairs?
No, the *existing* behaviour is the behaviour that pretends floating
point numbers are exact and splits hairs and fudges results.
#include