> p. 83 'Coercions and Component Extraction'
> I find it quite odd that round 3.5 returns 4, but round 2.5 returns 2.
> I always thought that round x.5 returns x+1 (instead of the
> even integer).
>> That's the behaviour in most math books and programming languages
Thinking of it, "round" should
Hans Aberg wrote:
> Thinking of it, "round" should probably be viewed as a method to convert a
> float to another float of less precision (and not a conversion to an
> integer)
To be picky, rounding a fixed point value to less bits is a very common
procedure (at least it is in the DSP world) to a
At 17:22 + 1998/12/21, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
>This is generally considered the most accurate kind of rounding, since it
>avoids cumulative errors. If you get lots of values on the 0.5 boundary,
>`round up' gives you an error of +0.5 for each, whereas round-to-even gives
>you a mean error of
> It looks odd to me too. I think this is just taken from some other
> standard, so I don't propose to alter it.
Were you asleep during your numerical analysis classes? :-)
If you always round x.5 up you will get numbers that are a little to
big on the average since x.5 is exactly halfway inbe
> > p. 83 'Coercions and Component Extraction'
> > I find it quite odd that round 3.5 returns 4, but round 2.5 returns 2.
> > I always thought that round x.5 returns x+1 (instead of the
> > even integer).
> > That's the behaviour in most math books and programming languages
>
> It looks odd to m
> p. 83 'Coercions and Component Extraction'
> I find it quite odd that round 3.5 returns 4, but round 2.5 returns 2.
> I always thought that round x.5 returns x+1 (instead of the
> even integer).
> That's the behaviour in most math books and programming languages
It looks odd to me too. I thi
> 3.11 (restricting monad comprehensions to list comprehensions)
> Generally I don't like to lose generality without a strong
> necessity. Can someone refer me to the rationale for that change?
> I've found only a reference that there can be confusing (for people
> in the process of learning Haske
Hello!
On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 08:42:39AM -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I have now completed the draft report on Haskell 98, both language and
> libraries. I have dated them both 'Draft: 1 Dec 1998'.
> [...]
You wrote "comments welcome", so I'll write some, based on the
list of changes.
