> Don't mix range and arithmetic sequences. I want arithmetic sequences for > Double, Float and Rational, but not range. > (For Float and Double one could implement range [all values between the > given bounds, in increasing order, would be the desired/expected semantics > for that, I think?],
Okay, fine, I tried. Obviously, I'm opposed to just flat removing features from the language, especially when they are so useful that they are being used without any difficulty at all by the 12 year olds I'm teaching right now. Someone (sorry, not me) should really write up the proposed change to Ord for Float/Double and shepherd them through the haskell-prime process. That one shouldn't even be controversial; there's already an isNaN people should be using for NaN checks, and any code relying on the current behavior is for all intents and purposes broken anyway. The only question is whether to add the new methods to RealFloat (breaking on the bizarre off chance that someone has written a nonstandard RealFloat instance), or add a new IEEE type class. -- Chris Smith _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe