| 08:23 | <Jesse> | AFAIK there is no current proposal to add ℂ to JS 🤣 |
| 08:46 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | https://github.com/tc39/proposal-extended-numeric-literals "Other numeric types which may be added: [...] Complex numbers" 😛 |
| 08:48 | <Andreu Botella> | Next up, quaternions |
| 08:51 | <Jesse> | see, there's all sorts of stuff to talk about! |
| 16:26 | <Michael Ficarra> | okay, serious question: what advantage do decimals have over rationals? |
| 16:26 | <Michael Ficarra> | it seems like rationals would be strictly better |
| 16:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | and a rational library is really simple to implement on top of bigints today |
| 16:36 | <Jesse> | one concern that comes to mind with rationals would be the normal form representation (unless one wants to expose numerically equal values with different representations). There might be quite a lot of integer division and modulo checks to reduce the numerators and denominators |
| 16:38 | <Jesse> | there was a discussion about rationals in proposal-decimal: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decimal/issues/6 |
| 16:45 | <littledan> | Rationals and decimals are just different data types. A very common and important operation on decimals is rounding in an inherently base-10 way; this operation doesn't really make sense on rationals. |
| 16:46 | <littledan> | pervasive rounding is also important to control size blowup (which, as Waldemar, remains a problem anyway for BigDecimal, but is worse for rationals) |
| 16:55 | <Michael Ficarra> | I dunno, that thread seems to support rational pretty well IMO |
| 16:55 | <Michael Ficarra> | a smart implementation can amortise the GCDs as appropriate for the platform |
| 16:56 | <Michael Ficarra> | anyway, we can talk more about it at the meeting next week |
| 19:15 | <littledan> | I dunno, that thread seems to support rational pretty well IMO |