Wolfgang Jeltsch-2 wrote: > > No, I think, it’s the Prelude’s fault to define (==) as “floating point > equality”. >
My bad, I meant IEEE (==) when I said it was "our" fault. I concur that the Prelude is at fault for using the (==) symbol for FP equality. Even if you don't demand from (==) to be an equivalence, you're giving a pure functional type to an impure operation (e.g because of SNaNs) My point was that since Haskell has a known and established mechanism for delimiting impurity, it seems as a shame not to use it to add some rigour to the myth-ridden, poorly understood floating point world. We need good FP for FP =) ----- Ariel J. Birnbaum -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/A-question-about-%22monad-laws%22-tp15411587p16044986.html Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
