William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> The rationals may be enumerated according to the construction given by
> Cantor, or by various other means. Cantor's construction was to arrange
> pairs of natural numbers (i,j) in a big 2-D array, strike out the entries
> with gcd(i,j) /= 1, and then traverse t
William Lee Irwin III writes:
>> [...]
>> The rationals may be enumerated according to the construction given
>> by Cantor, or by various other means.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 12:15:24PM +1200, Tom Pledger wrote:
> There was a related discussion last year, starting from this point in
> the archive
Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:26:19 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Bottom line: I don't like it either, but I don't think it's a typo.
> Feel free to suggest a typo-level of improvement!
It's not typo-level, but maybe the right way for future is to decouple
sequences created by [fo
[Haskell 98 editor hat on]
Michael said:
> I'm slightly puzzled about the definition of list enumerations in
> GHC (and possibly other Haskell implementations)...
>
> ``[0.0, 2 .. 9] :: [Float]''
> ==> [0.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0]
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
| > By definition, if you fo
| I remind you that there is still an uncorrected bug in the domain of
| rationals (at least in Hugs, but I believe that also elsewhere, since
| this is a plain Haskell bug in the Prelude).
|
| succ (3%2)
|
| gives 2%1.
|
| [3%2 .. something]
|
| gives [1%1, 2%1, ... etc.]
This one is fixed
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> [snip]
>> I remind you that there is still an uncorrected bug in the domain of
>> rationals (at least in Hugs, but I believe that also elsewhere, since
>> this is a plain Haskell bug in the Prelude).
>>
>> succ (3%2)
>>
>> gives 2%1.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 11:34:18A
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
| My permanent, constant suggestion: revise all the
| numeric classes very thoroughly. Beginning at the
| beginning.
Amen to that!
The numeric classes are a constant frustration when one just
wants some plain numbers in a program. There is however so
much more stuff
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
[snip]
> I remind you that there is still an uncorrected bug in the domain of
> rationals (at least in Hugs, but I believe that also elsewhere, since
> this is a plain Haskell bug in the Prelude).
>
> succ (3%2)
>
> gives 2%1.
Yes, this is also loony. succ should eithe
George Russell wrote:
>
> Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> > By definition, if you follow the standard you can't be wrong. :)
> > But the standard can be wrong. Perhaps this is a typo in the report?
> I think I looked at this a while back. The standard is kaput. It gets even
> worse if you try to m
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> By definition, if you follow the standard you can't be wrong. :)
> But the standard can be wrong. Perhaps this is a typo in the report?
I think I looked at this a while back. The standard is kaput. It gets even
worse if you try to make sense of the definitions of suc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Weber writes (on the ghc-users list):
> > I'm slightly puzzled about the definition of list enumerations in
> > GHC (and possibly other Haskell implementations)...
> >
> > ``[0.0, 2 .. 9] :: [Float]''
> > ==> [0.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0]
> >
> > Never
Michael Weber writes (on the ghc-users list):
> I'm slightly puzzled about the definition of list enumerations in
> GHC (and possibly other Haskell implementations)...
>
> ``[0.0, 2 .. 9] :: [Float]''
> ==> [0.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0]
>
> Nevertheless, this behaviour is defined by the
12 matches
Mail list logo
