My last word (promise!) on the subject, especially addressed to Jonathan
Cast, who writes:
To wit, I'm still failing to understand what your position is.
I quote the Master:
Lennart:
Come on people! This discussion is absurd. The numeric classes in
Haskell have a lot of choices that
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 11:22 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My last word (promise!) on the subject, especially addressed to Jonathan
Cast, who writes:
To wit, I'm still failing to understand what your position is.
I quote the Master:
Lennart:
Come on people! This discussion is
Dan Piponi wrote:
The reusability of Num varies inversely with how many
assumptions you make about it.
A default implementation of pi would only increase usability,
not decrease it.
If you need a specialized definition of pi in your instance,
you would provide it, just as you do now.
If pi
Yitzchak Gale writes:
Dan Piponi wrote:
The reusability of Num varies inversely with how many
assumptions you make about it.
A default implementation of pi would only increase usability,
not decrease it.
Suppose I believe you. (Actually, I am afraid, I have doubts.)
Can you provide some
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Dan Piponi wrote:
The reusability of Num varies inversely with how many
assumptions you make about it.
A default implementation of pi would only increase usability,
not decrease it.
As the others have shown, you can compute PI in many ways. Which
Jules Bean writes:
jerzy.karczmarczuk:
Somehow I do not only think that the default implementation would be good
for nothing, but that putting PI into Floating as a class member, serves
nobody.
Are you aware that it already is in the Floating class?
A very interesting question. What do you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somehow I do not only think that the default implementation would be good
for nothing, but that putting PI into Floating as a class member, serves
nobody.
Are you aware that it already is in the Floating class?
This discussion is not about adding it, but about whether
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion is not about adding it, but about whether or not it
should have a default.
Are you suggesting pi should be removed from the Floating class?
Then, what type would you give pi?
First, I don't care whether it is there or not. When I use it, I define
a
Jules Bean said:
If it is true of many Floating instances that (atan 1 * 4) is an
accurate way to calculate pi (and it appears to be 'accurate enough' for
Float and Double, on my computer) then adding it as a default doesn't
appear to do any harm.
Maybe this is the wrong point of view, but I
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 08:49:56AM -0700, Dan Piponi wrote:
Jules Bean said:
If it is true of many Floating instances that (atan 1 * 4) is an
accurate way to calculate pi (and it appears to be 'accurate enough'
for Float and Double, on my computer) then adding it as a default
doesn't
On 11 Oct 2007, at 4:49 am, Dan Piponi wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong point of view, but I think of defaults as
impementations that are meant to be correct, but not necessarily the
best way of doing things, leaving you the option to provide something
better.
The example of tanh in the report
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 10:40 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yitzchak Gale writes:
Dan Piponi wrote:
The reusability of Num varies inversely with how many
assumptions you make about it.
A default implementation of pi would only increase usability,
not decrease it.
Suppose I
Jonathan Cast adds 'something' to a discussion about pi.
I commented the statement of Yitzchak Gale, who answered some point
of Dan Piponi:
A default implementation of pi would only increase usability,
not decrease it.
I said:
Can you provide some examples of this increased usability?
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 02:11 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jonathan Cast adds 'something' to a discussion about pi.
I commented the statement of Yitzchak Gale, who answered some point
of Dan Piponi:
A default implementation of pi would only increase usability,
not decrease it.
I
jonathanccast:
I just noticed that pi doesn't have a default definition in the standard
prelude, according to the Haddock docs. Why is this?
$ ghci
Prelude :t pi
pi :: (Floating a) = a
Prelude pi
3.141592653589793
It's in the Floating class.
-- Don
Jonathan Cast reacts to Don Stewart statement about PI:
It's in the Floating class.
Yes. But it doesn't have a default implementation. That strikes me as
odd, considering the mathematical and actual correctness of
class Floating sigma where
pi = acos (-1)
...
So, you assume that
On 10/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, you assume that acos should have a *default* implementation in the
Floating class? Propose it, please.
I don't think the proposal makes any such assumption. It implies only
that *if* you provide acos, pi will be provided for you
Dan Piponi writes:
jerzy.karczmarczuk wrote:
So, you assume that acos should have a *default* implementation in the
Floating class? Propose it, please.
I don't think the proposal makes any such assumption. It implies only
that *if* you provide acos, pi will be provided for you automatically
On 10/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, sorry, I slipped... I was so against the acos(-1) /or atan(...)/
solution, that I wrote anything...
+1, Honest
--
Dan
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
19 matches
Mail list logo
