Hi Liyang,
| On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 12:39:48AM -0800, Mark P Jones wrote:
| Hugs uses single precision by default because the implementation
| using double precision relies on a hack whose behavior is not
| assured in any way by the C language in which it is implemented.
|
| I found this in
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 12:39:48AM -0800, Mark P Jones wrote:
Hugs uses single precision by default because the implementation
using double precision relies on a hack whose behavior is not
assured in any way by the C language in which it is implemented.
I found this in
Hi Dave,
| Note that I'd recommend getting some clarification about this from either
| the current hugs team or Mark Jones (who are probably reading this list),
| as I can vaguely recall a couple of times over the last few years where
| Mark Jone has said `Hugs should not be used for serious
On Saturday 12 January 2002 17:35, you wrote:
(I'm just a new convertee to the ways of Functional Programming, so
please go easy on me! ^_^;;)
Welcome. Hope you find it as fun and useful as I.
Why is it that `Double's in Hugs only seem to have the same
precision as a `Float'? I've some code
Evening,
Thanks for the near-instantaneous reply!
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 05:59:02PM -0500, Scott Turner wrote:
Welcome. Hope you find it as fun and useful as I.
I'm sure I will! My wee adventure into the world of functional
programming has been nothing short of delightful so far, and there's
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 01:43:32AM +, Liyang Hu wrote:
'fraid I've been too spoilt by Debian, haven't built anything from
source in ages ... I'll notify Hugs' package maintainer and see if I
can convince him/her to apply this ...
No trouble at all; I feel this should be the default as
