Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:19:32 +0100, Keith Wansbrough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pisze:
> > IMHO GHC's documentation should clearly warn that programmers should
> > not depend on even basic stability and exactness of floating point
> > computations, and only stability is provided by -fstrictfp.
>
> GHC is no different from any other compiler for any other language in
> this respect.
I don't believe that the Haskell report allows
(x<y, x<y) == (True, False)
While unlikely, I think it's possible in GHC. It can depend on optimi
zation flags or manually applying theoretically semantics-preserving
transformations like beta reduction. This is what I called "stability".
Strictly speaking it's nonconformance to the Haskell standard. It does
say that certain constructs are equivalent and that the result of a
function depends only on its argument.
About exactness: I know that everybody should know it, but this thread
was caused by the fact that some people don't.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/ GCS/M d- s+:-- a23 C+++$ UL++>++++$ P+++ L++>++++$ E-
^^ W++ N+++ o? K? w(---) O? M- V? PS-- PE++ Y? PGP+ t
QRCZAK 5? X- R tv-- b+>++ DI D- G+ e>++++ h! r--%>++ y-
