Re: Decimal literal?

Leif Walsh wrote:
> Coming in to the thread _way_ late, here's my $0.015:
> 
> Sure, it would be great to have an accurate and fast implementation of
> decimal/floating point numbers active by default in the language.

We have one by many definitions of 'accurate'.  Being off by a few or 
even a hundred parts per quintillion is pretty good by some standards.

>  We don't have that yet.

I disagree.

>  We have a fast implementation, and we have an
> accurate one, and until we have both, there is a decision to be made:

The notion that decimal is more 'accurate' than float needs a lot of 
qualification.  Yes, it is intended to give *exactly* the answer to 
various financial calculations that various jurisdictions mandate, but 
that is a rather specialized meaning of 'accurate'.

tjr