On 28 February 2006 18:42, Jacques Carette wrote:
> What *problem* are you actually trying to solve here?
The problem that 'realToFrac (0/0 :: Float) :: Double' doesn't give you
NaN, and similarly for the other special float values.
> If it is
> "conversion between floating point types", then th
John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:44:04AM -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
I'm almost scared to ask: does this mean we need negative zero as well?
good point. probably.
If the point is to allow floating-point conversion to go through Ratio
correctly, you might have to do
On 28/02/06, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:44:04AM -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
> > I'm almost scared to ask: does this mean we need negative zero as well?
>
> good point. probably.
>
> > This change means that Rational is no longer a field. It makes me feel
> >
Cale Gibbard wrote:
This change means that Rational is no longer a field. It makes me feel
uneasy at least. Should we really expect realToFrac to propagate those
values? Look at its type:
realToFrac :: (Real a, Fractional b) => a -> b
Nothing about the Fractional class would seem to indicate
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:44:04AM -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
> I'm almost scared to ask: does this mean we need negative zero as well?
good point. probably.
> This change means that Rational is no longer a field. It makes me feel
> uneasy at least. Should we really expect realToFrac to propagate
On 27/02/06, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not sure if this has been brought up for haskell-prime or not, but
> a while ago someone noticed that 'realToFrac' as specified in the report
> can't propagate NaN or infinity values properly since it goes through a
> Rational intermediate
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:50:38PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> >The proposed solution was to add NaN, +Infinity, and -Infinity to
> >rational with the representations 0 :% 0, 1 :% 0, and -1 :% 0
> >respectively. Seems straightforward, (and generally useful) but we
> >should make sure not to forg
John Meacham wrote:
The proposed solution was to add NaN, +Infinity, and -Infinity to
rational with the representations 0 :% 0, 1 :% 0, and -1 :% 0
respectively. Seems straightforward, (and generally useful) but we
should make sure not to forget it for haskell-prime.
I'm not necessarily again
