| hbc is on the Integral side, if that counts. :-)
| Just because ghc doesn't follow the spec isn't a good reason
| to change the spec. :-)
I absolutely didn't say that! All I'm saying is
* Two of the four impls have to change regardless
* The change is non-de-stabilising on the rest of the re
> I argued that (Num a, Ord a) makes most sense to me.
> You argued that (Integral a) was a conscious choice (something I
> don't remember but I'm sure you're right), and is the right one anyway.
>
> I'd be interested to know what others think. If there's any doubt,
> we'll stay with Integral.
> > I argued that (Num a, Ord a) makes most sense to me.
> > You argued that (Integral a) was a conscious choice (something I
> > don't remember but I'm sure you're right), and is the right one anyway.
> >
> > I'd be interested to know what others think. If there's any doubt,
> > we'll stay with
I strongly disapprove of n+k patterns from a whole-language taste
perspective, so I am most unkeen to broaden their scope. Because they are
such a language kludge already it simply doesn't make sense to try to reason
rationally about what the "best" answer for them is. It's like putting
lipstick o
I too am against broadening the scope of n+k patterns, for reasons that others have
already
given. In particular, I am absolutely against allowing n+k patterns to be used for
Float/Double.
If n+k patterns are to be meaningful at all, you want matching y against x+1, you want
a unique
x such th
At 03:27 30-01-02 -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>| hbc is on the Integral side, if that counts. :-)
>| Just because ghc doesn't follow the spec isn't a good reason
>| to change the spec. :-)
>
>I absolutely didn't say that! All I'm saying is
>
>* Two of the four impls have to change regardless
OK, OK, I give in!
Integral it remains. I repent.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Rijk J. C. van Haaften [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 30 January 2002 17:00
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: n+k patterns
|
|
| At 03:27 30-01-02 -0800, Simon Pe
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | hbc is on the Integral side, if that counts. :-)
> | Just because ghc doesn't follow the spec isn't a good reason
> | to change the spec. :-)
>
> I absolutely didn't say that! All I'm saying is
>
> * Two of the four impls have to change regardless
Only because two
On 30 Jan 2002, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yet for floats there may not be such an x (y = positive zero), or there may
> be more than one (y=2^n with n chosen so that 2^n+1 is not
exactly representable but 2^n-1 is, then
> x could be 2^n or 2^n-1).
Well, I am just a newbie in Haskell
