Jerzy Karczmarczuk writes:
I am abhorred by the fact that adding ... :: Rational
changes the lexical meaning of a literal.
It doesn't. A literal with a decimal point always means (fromRational
(X%Y)) for some appropriate X and Y. Adding a type signature changes
the dynamic meaning of the
On 2003-07-08 at 10:15+0200 Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
If it's a _Rational_, surely you want it to be exactly the
same as you get for 31415926536%100?
No. If 'you' means concretely me, then no. Simply no.
Writing
pi = 3.1415926536 :: Rational
and expecting to continue the
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:06:23PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Unfortunately we don't have Real (in
libraries as far as I remember -- if you have a continued
fraction implementation of it, it ought to go to the
libraries list).
Not one, but TWO implementations! One using
Jon Fairbairn comments //Steffen Mazanek//:
Prelude 0.1::Rational
13421773 % 134217728
Prelude 13421773/134217728
0.1
I do not know how this fraction is calculated, but
it does not fit my expectations :-)
Remember that internally arithmetic is binary, and that 0.1
can't be expressed exactly as
On Monday, 2003-07-07, 01:37, CEST, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
[...]
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:43:18PM +0200, Steffen Mazanek wrote:
Prelude 0.1::Rational
13421773 % 134217728
That's allowed. The Rational only has to be correct to the limit of machine
precision. (Incidentally, if it's
On 2003-07-07 at 12:01+0200 Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Jon Fairbairn comments //Steffen Mazanek//:
Prelude 0.1::Rational
13421773 % 134217728
Prelude 13421773/134217728
0.1
I do not know how this fraction is calculated, but
it does not fit my expectations :-)
Remember that
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
This is less a bug than a Nessie monster which haunts Hugs
some centuries already, and on Internet the issue has been
discussed at least 4 times. The old, experimental Gofer
Prelude numeric functions were sometimes abominable,
On Monday, 2003-07-07, 13:05, CEST, Ross Paterson wrote:
[...]
In the case of 0.1::Rational, it shouldn't be using floating point. The
Report says this means fromRational (1%10), i.e. 1%10.
In which paragraph of the report is this specified?
[...]
Wolfgang
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:09:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
On Monday, 2003-07-07, 13:05, CEST, Ross Paterson wrote:
In the case of 0.1::Rational, it shouldn't be using floating point. The
Report says this means fromRational (1%10), i.e. 1%10.
In which paragraph of the report is this
Ross Paterson wrote:
In the case of 0.1::Rational, it shouldn't be using floating point.
The Report says this means fromRational (1%10), i.e. 1%10.
Aha. Now I have a little chance to die less naïve. All my conversion
proposals are simply out of place, since there should be nothing
to convert.
On 2003-07-07 at 13:40+0200 Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
[...] I believe (still naïvely??) that those socio-psycho-pragmatisms
which played some role in the definition of the language should
be better tuned. If I were to write
pi = 3.1415926536 :: Rational
I suppose that I would like to see
On 2003-07-05 at 19:43+0200 Steffen Mazanek wrote:
Hello,
a quit funny hugs session:
Prelude 0.5::Rational
1 % 2
Prelude 0.1::Rational
13421773 % 134217728
Prelude 13421773/134217728
0.1
I do not know how this fraction is calculated, but
it does not fit my expectations :-)
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:24:32PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
On 2003-07-05 at 19:43+0200 Steffen Mazanek wrote:
a quit funny hugs session:
Prelude 0.5::Rational
1 % 2
Prelude 0.1::Rational
13421773 % 134217728
Prelude 13421773/134217728
0.1
I do not know how this fraction
13 matches
Mail list logo
