• Vlad Levenfeld (2/2) Feb 16 2015 We've got arbitrary precision integers, why not arbitrary
• Kagamin (1/1) Feb 17 2015 Periodic fractions.
• Vlad Levenfeld (6/7) Feb 17 2015 Or transcendental numbers, for that matter, but arbitrary !=
• Dominikus Dittes Scherkl (5/13) Feb 17 2015 We have rational (two bigint, one for the numerator and one for
• Vlad Levenfeld (4/7) Feb 17 2015 Yeah, this is probably the best that can be done, since any
• Kagamin (4/7) Feb 17 2015 What do you mean? As long as you don't change the operand, it
• Vlad Levenfeld (6/13) Feb 17 2015 If you add or subtract two floating point numbers whose

"Vlad Levenfeld" <vlevenfeld gmail.com> writes:

We've got arbitrary precision integers, why not arbitrary 
precision floating point?

"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:

Periodic fractions.

"Vlad Levenfeld" <vlevenfeld gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 at 08:05:49 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 Periodic fractions.

Or transcendental numbers, for that matter, but arbitrary != 
infinite. A max_expansion template parameter could be useful here.

For my use case I'm less concerned with absolute resolution than 
with preserving the information in the smaller operand when 
dealing with large magnitude differences.

"Dominikus Dittes Scherkl" writes:

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 at 09:08:17 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 at 08:05:49 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 Periodic fractions.

 Or transcendental numbers, for that matter, but arbitrary != 
 infinite. A max_expansion template parameter could be useful 
 here.

 For my use case I'm less concerned with absolute resolution 
 than with preserving the information in the smaller operand 
 when dealing with large magnitude differences.

We have rational (two bigint, one for the numerator and one for 
the denominator), which I like better than floatingpoint (it's 
more expressive).

"Vlad Levenfeld" <vlevenfeld gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 at 13:55:15 UTC, Dominikus Dittes 
Scherkl wrote:
 We have rational (two bigint, one for the numerator and one for 
 the denominator), which I like better than floatingpoint (it's 
 more expressive).

Yeah, this is probably the best that can be done, since any 
arbitrary-precision float is just gonna be a subset of Q anyway.

"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 at 09:08:17 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld 
wrote:
 For my use case I'm less concerned with absolute resolution 
 than with preserving the information in the smaller operand 
 when dealing with large magnitude differences.

What do you mean? As long as you don't change the operand, it 
will preserve its value.

"Vlad Levenfeld" <vlevenfeld gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 at 14:03:45 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 at 09:08:17 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld 
 wrote:
 For my use case I'm less concerned with absolute resolution 
 than with preserving the information in the smaller operand 
 when dealing with large magnitude differences.

 What do you mean? As long as you don't change the operand, it 
 will preserve its value.

If you add or subtract two floating point numbers whose 
magnitudes differ, then the lower bits of the smaller operand 
will be lost in the result. If the magnitudes are different 
enough, then the result of the operation could even be equal to 
the larger operand. In vivo: http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/870c5e61d276