Thanks for the swift reply, see inline
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:51:29 +0100, Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the first question you have to address is whether you really want > to represent a *set* of reals or an *interval* of reals. A set of intervals, I would assume... The reason for that is that i will probably end up with set theoretic operations like complement, and in that case the complement of an interval of reals will have a hole in it somewhere. That's why i represented them as lists of pairs (lower and upper bound of the sub-interval, so to speak) , but that will probably get ugly before long. > Then, some other questions follow: > - possibly infinite sets within any given interval? I was not explicitly thinking of infinite sets, i just wanted to keep the precision open for now. I would say, up to 4 decimal figures maximum. > - open or closed intervals? closed intervals, but with holes. (see above) > and probably more. > > #g > -- cheers, stijn _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
