Quoth Chris Smith cdsm...@gmail.com,
...
So that's what this is about: do we think of Float as an approximate
real number type, or as an exact type with specific values. If the
latter, then of course you exclude the value that's larger than the
upper range. If the former, then using
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 00:29 -0700, Donn Cave wrote:
It doesn't appear to me to be a technicality about the representation -
the value we're talking about excluding is not just represented as
greater than 0.3, it is greater than 0.3 when applied in computations.
Sure, the exact value is greater
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Chris Smith cdsm...@gmail.com wrote:
You could calculate the entire range using Rational and then convert
each individual value after the fact. That doesn't seem like a
reasonable default, since it has a runtime performance cost. Of course
you're
Iavor Diatchki iavor.diatc...@gmail.com writes:
last ([0.1, 0.2 .. 0.5]) == 0.5
False
last (map fromRational [0.1, 0.2 .. 0.5]) == 0.5
True
As Ross pointed out in a previous e-mail the instance for Rationals is
also broken:
last (map fromRational [1,3 .. 20])
21.0
But only because it
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 09:47 -0700, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
As Ross pointed out in a previous e-mail the instance for Rationals is
also broken:
last (map fromRational [1,3 .. 20])
21.0
Sure, for Int, Rational, Integer, etc., frankly I'd be in favor of a
runtime error when the last value
