Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Why does the class called "Real" support only rationals, and not all reals?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Dan Piponi wrote: > On 6/4/07, DavidA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I'm afraid that you are understanding correctly. Annoying isn't it. > > > > It is well-known (among Haskell mathematicians at least) that the numeric > > type > > classes in the prelude are broken. > >

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Why does the class called "Real" support only rationals, and not all reals?

On 6/4/07, DavidA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, I'm afraid that you are understanding correctly. Annoying isn't it. It is well-known (among Haskell mathematicians at least) that the numeric type classes in the prelude are broken. A few days ago I found myself forced to write: instance Floa

[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why does the class called "Real" support only rationals, and not all reals?

Yes, I'm afraid that you are understanding correctly. Annoying isn't it. It is well-known (among Haskell mathematicians at least) that the numeric type classes in the prelude are broken. Here's one proposal for a small step in the right direction: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ti