If operator

Question

Properly testing two floating-point numbers for equality is something that a lot of people, including me, don't fully understand. Today, however, I thought about how some standard containers define equality in terms of `operator<`. I always see people with problems surrounding equality, but never with the other relational comparisons. There are even silent versions of them to use, which include everything except for equality and inequality. Assuming `operator<` works "properly", unlike `operator==`, why couldn't we do this: ``` bool floateq(float a, float b) { //check NaN return !(a < b) && !(b < a); } ``` In fact, I did run a test with an additional overload for doubles, as seen here, and it seems to have the same pitfalls as comparing them with `operator==`: ``` std::cout << "float->double vs double: " << floateq(static_cast(0.7f), 0.7) << " " << (static_cast(0.7f) == 0.7) << " "; ``` Output: float->double vs double: 0 0 Am I to worry about using all comparison oper…

Accepted Answer

The `==`, `<`, `>`, `<=`, `>=`, and `!=` operators work just fine with floating-point numbers. You seem to have the premise that some reasonable implementation of `<` ought to compare (double)0.7f equal to 0.7. This is not the case. If you cast `0.7f` to a `double`, you get `0x1.666666p-1`. However, `0.7` is equal to `0x1.6666666666666p-1`. These are not numerically equal; in fact, `(double)0.7f` is considerably smaller than `0.7` --- it would be ridiculous for them to compare equal. When working with floating-point numbers, it is important to remember that they are floating-point numbers, rather than real numbers or rational numbers or any other such thing. You have to take into account their properties and not the properties everyone wants them to have. Do this and you automatically avoid most of the commonly-cited "pitfalls" of working with floating-point numbers.

If operator< works properly for floating-point types, why can't we use it for equality testing?

Solution

Problem