Call it a contrivance if you want, my point was just that you can get very surprising results even for "real life" sized numbers.
Not sure why you changed it from "1.0 % 0.2" to "0.1 % 0.2". The error on the one I showed was near 0.2, not 1e-17. Did I miss your point?
I mistakenly used 0.1 instead of 1.0 but the _numerical_ error is still x10-17, the modulo is further introducing a discontinuity that creates sensitivity to that tiny numerical error, whether that is a problem depends on what you are doing with the result... 0.19999999999999996 is very close to 0 as far as modulo is concerned.
I'm not arguing against you just clarifying the difference between propagation of error into significant numerical error through something like compounding; and being sensitive to very tiny errors by to depending on discontinuities such as those introduced by modulo.
> The right answer is 0.0, and the most it can be wrong is 0.2. It's nearly as wrong as possible.
Just to clarify for others, you're implicitly contriving that to mean: you care about the error being positive. The numerical error in 0.1 % 0.2 is actually fairly ordinarily tiny (on the order of x10^-17), but using modulo may create sensitivity to these tiny errors by introducing discontinuity where it matters.