Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Why does the class called Real support only rationals, and not all reals?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Dan Piponi wrote: On 6/4/07, DavidA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I'm afraid that you are understanding correctly. Annoying isn't it. It is well-known (among Haskell mathematicians at least) that the numeric type classes in the prelude are broken. A few days ago

[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why does the class called Real support only rationals, and not all reals?

Yes, I'm afraid that you are understanding correctly. Annoying isn't it. It is well-known (among Haskell mathematicians at least) that the numeric type classes in the prelude are broken. Here's one proposal for a small step in the right direction:

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Why does the class called Real support only rationals, and not all reals?

On 6/4/07, DavidA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I'm afraid that you are understanding correctly. Annoying isn't it. It is well-known (among Haskell mathematicians at least) that the numeric type classes in the prelude are broken. A few days ago I found myself forced to write: instance