Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> Can I assume we are all familiar with the concept of significant digits and
> that we agree that from this point of view 2 != 2.0? And that results such as
> the above would be a regression and loss in precision?
Not really, because if someone cares about precision to that extent they
won't be using binary floats anyway (they'll be using Decimal, or
something like it). Besides, for trunc, ceil and floor, it's all zeroes
after the decimal point by definition (no matter how many significant
digits you started with).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4