I wrote
> I'm afraid that I have very little faith in the numerical analysis
> expertise of the typical Haskell implementor, so I think it is dangerous
> to give them an incorrect "default" implementation. I am reminded of
> the notorious ASCII C (very)-pseudo-random number generator . . .
Dylan
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> Did Joe Fasel include this consciously? If yes,
> my respect - already almost infinite, is even bigger now).
I'm pretty sure he did, but he can speak for himself. I know he
discussed these things with his numerical collegues when designing
the prelude.
Look at this d
George Russell wants to terminate the discussion with Dylan Thurston who
corrects some inadequacies of his previous posting :
> > ... Surely sinh x is at least 1/2 of exp x, leaving only a
> > very narrow range for this to happen. Behaviour of sinh x near 0 is
> > more important, unless I'm miss
