在https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/epsilon上找到了另一个有趣的实现

#include <cmath>
#include <limits>
#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
#include <algorithm>



template<class T>
typename std::enable_if<!std::numeric_limits<T>::is_integer, bool>::type
    almost_equal(T x, T y, int ulp)
{
    // the machine epsilon has to be scaled to the magnitude of the values used
    // and multiplied by the desired precision in ULPs (units in the last place)
    return std::fabs(x-y) <= std::numeric_limits<T>::epsilon() * std::fabs(x+y) * ulp
        // unless the result is subnormal
        || std::fabs(x-y) < std::numeric_limits<T>::min();
}

int main()
{
    double d1 = 0.2;
    double d2 = 1 / std::sqrt(5) / std::sqrt(5);
    std::cout << std::fixed << std::setprecision(20) 
        << "d1=" << d1 << "\nd2=" << d2 << '\n';

    if(d1 == d2)
        std::cout << "d1 == d2\n";
    else
        std::cout << "d1 != d2\n";

    if(almost_equal(d1, d2, 2))
        std::cout << "d1 almost equals d2\n";
    else
        std::cout << "d1 does not almost equal d2\n";
}

下面是使用std::numeric_limits::epsilon()不是答案的证明——对于大于1的值它会失败:

证明我上面的评论:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits>

double ItoD (__int64 x) {
    // Return double from 64-bit hexadecimal representation.
    return *(reinterpret_cast<double*>(&x));
}

void test (__int64 ai, __int64 bi) {
    double a = ItoD(ai), b = ItoD(bi);
    bool close = std::fabs(a-b) < std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon();
    printf ("%.16f and %.16f %s close.\n", a, b, close ? "are " : "are not");
}

int main()
{
    test (0x3fe0000000000000L,
          0x3fe0000000000001L);

    test (0x3ff0000000000000L,
          0x3ff0000000000001L);
}

运行产生如下输出:

0.5000000000000000 and 0.5000000000000001 are  close.
1.0000000000000000 and 1.0000000000000002 are not close.

请注意，在第二种情况下(1且仅大于1)，两个输入值尽可能接近，并且仍然比较为不接近。因此，对于大于1.0的值，不妨只使用相等性测试。当比较浮点值时，固定的epsilon将无法保存您的数据。

我为java编写这篇文章，但是您可能会发现它很有用。它使用长变量而不是双变量，但会处理nan、亚法线等。

public static boolean equal(double a, double b) {
    final long fm = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFL;       // fraction mask
    final long sm = 0x8000000000000000L;    // sign mask
    final long cm = 0x8000000000000L;       // most significant decimal bit mask
    long c = Double.doubleToLongBits(a), d = Double.doubleToLongBits(b);        
    int ea = (int) (c >> 52 & 2047), eb = (int) (d >> 52 & 2047);
    if (ea == 2047 && (c & fm) != 0 || eb == 2047 && (d & fm) != 0) return false;   // NaN 
    if (c == d) return true;                            // identical - fast check
    if (ea == 0 && eb == 0) return true;                // ±0 or subnormals
    if ((c & sm) != (d & sm)) return false;             // different signs
    if (abs(ea - eb) > 1) return false;                 // b > 2*a or a > 2*b
    d <<= 12; c <<= 12;
    if (ea < eb) c = c >> 1 | sm;
    else if (ea > eb) d = d >> 1 | sm;
    c -= d;
    return c < 65536 && c > -65536;     // don't use abs(), because:
    // There is a posibility c=0x8000000000000000 which cannot be converted to positive
}
public static boolean zero(double a) { return (Double.doubleToLongBits(a) >> 52 & 2047) < 3; }

请记住，在一些浮点运算之后，number可能与我们期望的非常不同。没有代码可以解决这个问题。

使用任何其他建议都要非常小心。这完全取决于上下文。

我花了很长时间在一个系统中追踪错误，该系统假设|a-b|<epsilon，则a==b。潜在的问题是:

The implicit presumption in an algorithm that if a==b and b==c then a==c. Using the same epsilon for lines measured in inches and lines measured in mils (.001 inch). That is a==b but 1000a!=1000b. (This is why AlmostEqual2sComplement asks for the epsilon or max ULPS). The use of the same epsilon for both the cosine of angles and the length of lines! Using such a compare function to sort items in a collection. (In this case using the builtin C++ operator == for doubles produced correct results.)

就像我说的，这完全取决于上下文和a和b的预期大小。

顺便说一下，std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()是“机器epsilon”。它是1.0和下一个用double表示的值之间的差值。我猜它可以用在比较函数中，但只有当期望值小于1时。(这是对@cdv的回答的回应…)

同样，如果你的int算术是双精度的(这里我们在某些情况下使用双精度来保存int值)，你的算术是正确的。例如，4.0/2.0将等同于1.0+1.0。只要你不做导致分数(4.0/3.0)的事情，或者不超出int的大小。

就数量的规模而言:

如果在某种物理意义上，ε是量的大小(即相对值)的一小部分，而A和B类型在同一意义上具有可比性，那么我认为，下面的观点是相当正确的:

#include <limits>
#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>

#include <cmath>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cassert>

template< typename A, typename B >
inline
bool close_enough(A const & a, B const & b,
                  typename std::common_type< A, B >::type const & epsilon)
{
    using std::isless;
    assert(isless(0, epsilon)); // epsilon is a part of the whole quantity
    assert(isless(epsilon, 1));
    using std::abs;
    auto const delta = abs(a - b);
    auto const x = abs(a);
    auto const y = abs(b);
    // comparable generally and |a - b| < eps * (|a| + |b|) / 2
    return isless(epsilon * y, x) && isless(epsilon * x, y) && isless((delta + delta) / (x + y), epsilon);
}

int main()
{
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(0.9, 1.0, 0.1) << std::endl;
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(1.0, 1.1, 0.1) << std::endl;
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(1.1,    1.2,    0.01) << std::endl;
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(1.0001, 1.0002, 0.01) << std::endl;
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(1.0, 0.01, 0.1) << std::endl;
    return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

我使用这个代码:

bool AlmostEqual(double v1, double v2)
    {
        return (std::fabs(v1 - v2) < std::fabs(std::min(v1, v2)) * std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon());
    }