Quoth Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz,
[ ... re Why would you write
an upper bound of 0.3 on a list if you don't expect that to be included
in the result? ]
Because upper bounds are *UPPER BOUNDS* and are NOT as a rule included
in the result. If you write [0,2..9] you
- DO
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 19:54 -0700, Donn Cave wrote:
Pardon the questions from the gallery, but ... I can sure see that
0.3 shouldn't be included in the result by overshooting the limit
(i.e., 0.30004), and the above expectations about
[0,2..9] are obvious enough, but now I have to
On 27/09/2011, at 3:54 PM, Donn Cave wrote:
Quoth Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz,
[ ... re Why would you write
an upper bound of 0.3 on a list if you don't expect that to be included
in the result? ]
Because upper bounds are *UPPER BOUNDS* and are NOT as a rule included
in
On 27/09/2011, at 4:55 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
So there are two perspectives here. One is that we should think in
terms of exact values of the type Float, which means we'd want to
exclude it, because it's larger than the top end of the range. The
other is that we should think of approximate
Quoth Chris Smith cdsm...@gmail.com,
...
As for Enum, if someone were to want a type class to represent an
enumeration of all the values of a type, then such a thing is reasonable
to want. Maybe you can even reasonably wish it were called Enum. But
it would be the *wrong* thing to use as a
