Lennart Augustsson wrote: > By definition, if you follow the standard you can't be wrong. :) > But the standard can be wrong. Perhaps this is a typo in the report? I think I looked at this a while back. The standard is kaput. It gets even worse if you try to make sense of the definitions of succ and pred as applied to floating-point number. My suggestion: get rid of Enum on floating-point numbers. Maybe it'll make floating point loops a little lengthier to code, but at least it will be clear what exactly is being coded.
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness malcolm-ghc
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness Lennart Augustsson
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness George Russell
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness Jerzy Karczmarczuk
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness Koen Claessen
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness George Russell
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness William Lee Irwin III
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness William Lee Irwin III
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness Tony Davie
- RE: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness Simon Peyton-Jones
- RE: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: numericEnumFromThenTo strangeness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk