> A language storing big numbers in non-native formats, like your Rakudo example, is irrelevant to the parent's point. I thought being able to store an up to 8

> A language storing big numbers in non-native formats, like your Rakudo example, is irrelevant to the parent's point. I thought being able to store an up to 8 digit integer in a float was an interesting tidbit. I already knew it but others might not. However, it was also completely irrelevant to a discussion of why 0.1 + 0.2 equals 0.3 in Perl 6 and, imo, even to my (slight over) emphasis that a float is for (efficient) storage and processing of approximations, not exact numbers. > 0.1 isn't past any "point" (whatever that means). Precisely. I was directly responding to "And [floats] can store binary fractions exactly up to a point." What does that mean? "up to a point" is highly ambiguous. The fact that 0.1 isn't stored exactly is completely unambiguous. > It just isn't representable without recurrence in base 2 much like 1/3 isn't in base 10. So what? It is representable without recurrence in a pair of base 2 numbers, eg 1 (numerator) and 11 (denominator) for 1/3. > Your post could do without 'duh' OK. I considered that and thought it was OK, all things considered, given that it wasn't prominent and succinctly expressed my reaction. But I hear you that even such a gentle 'duh' is problematic and will be even more careful about how I express myself at HN in future. > and the like as well. Would you be willing to be specific? While I recognize the 'duh' is edgy, I've reread the rest of what I wrote and don't understand what you think I got wrong.