Jorge Chamorro wrote:
> On 10/07/2013, at 03:23, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>> FWIW, we include 2**53 as in the "contiguous range of exactly representable natural numbers".
>>>
>>> https://code.google.com/p/google-caja/source/browse/trunk/src/com/google/caja/ses/startSES.js#492
>> It's exactly representable, but its representation is not exact. If that makes sense!
>
> 2**53 is exactly representable, but it gets the exact same representation as 2**53 + 1

Yes, you said that last time, and Allen said it before in the message to 
which you replied :-P.

/be

Jorge Chamorro wrote:
> 2^53 is exactly representable, but it gets the exact same representation as 2^53 + 1

Yes, you said that last time, and Allen said it before in the message to 
which you replied :-P.