Hi Jacques,
Thanks also to you for a most interesting reply.
This same discussion has taken place on the
discussion list of every modern general-purpose
programming language.
The same points are always raised and argued, and
the conclusion is always the same: floating point
exceptions should rai
I wrote:
> > While checking for floating-point overflow and
> > underflow conditions, I tried to create...
> > Infinity with the literal "1e10"... Is
> > there a better way to check for Infinity?
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> Did you try isNaN and isInfinite?
Oops. Thanks! Thanks also to Lennart
The RealFloat class has a number of methods for testing
various properties of a FP number:
isNaN :: a -> Bool
isInfinite :: a -> Bool
isDenormalized :: a -> Bool
isNegativeZero :: a -> Bool
isIEEE :: a -> Bool
If you really want to create an Infinity, I suggest 1/0,
but not all FP forma
The IEEE 754 standard says (fairly clearly) that +1.0 / +0.0 is one of
the most 'stable' definitions of Infinity (in Float at least).
Throwing an exception is also regarded as a possibility in IEEE 754, but
it is expected that that is not the default, as experience shows that
that is a sub-
On 9/29/05, Yitzchak Gale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While checking for floating-point overflow andunderflow conditions, I tried to create a somewhatreliable cross-platform Infinity with the literal"1e10".When GHC 6.4.1 reads this literal, it goes into a
deep trance and consumes huge amounts of
While checking for floating-point overflow and
underflow conditions, I tried to create a somewhat
reliable cross-platform Infinity with the literal
"1e10".
When GHC 6.4.1 reads this literal, it goes into a
deep trance and consumes huge amounts of
memory. Shouldn't it immediately recognize such
