On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 07:57 +, Aaron Denney wrote:
> On 2007-10-11, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes. I am very eager to criticize your wording. To wit, I'm still
> > failing to understand what your position is. Is it fair to say that
> > your answer to my question, why pi ha
On 2007-10-11, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. I am very eager to criticize your wording. To wit, I'm still
> failing to understand what your position is. Is it fair to say that
> your answer to my question, why pi has no default implementation, is `in
> fact, pi shouldn't be a m
Come on people! This discussion is absurd. The numeric classes in Haskell
have a lot of choices that are somewhat arbitrary. Just live with it. If
pi has a default or not has no practical consequences.
-- Lennart
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haske
On 11 Oct 2007, at 1:34 pm, Dan Weston wrote:
Actually, [pi] is a constant: piDecimalExpansion :: String.
No, that's another constant.
A translation from piDecimalExpansion :: String to pi :: Floating a
=> a is already well defined via read :: Read a => String -> a
Wrong. piDecimalExpan
Dan Weston wrote:
David Benbennick wrote:
On 10/10/07, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, it is a constant: piDecimalExpansion :: String.
Where is this constant defined?
A translation from piDecimalExpansion :: String to pi :: Floating a => a
is already well defined via read ::
David Benbennick wrote:
On 10/10/07, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, it is a constant: piDecimalExpansion :: String.
Where is this constant defined?
A translation from piDecimalExpansion :: String to pi :: Floating a => a
is already well defined via read :: Read a => String -
On 10/10/07, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, it is a constant: piDecimalExpansion :: String.
Where is this constant defined?
> A translation from piDecimalExpansion :: String to pi :: Floating a => a
> is already well defined via read :: Read a => String -> a
>
> Any definition
Actually, it is a constant: piDecimalExpansion :: String.
A translation from piDecimalExpansion :: String to pi :: Floating a => a
is already well defined via read :: Read a => String -> a
Any definition of pi in the Floating class that differs from (read
piDecimalExpansion) is erroneous. I p
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 12:29 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> ChrisK writes:
>
> > Putting 'pi' in the same class as the trigonometric functions is good
> > design.
>
> If you wish so... But:
> Look, this is just a numeric constant.
> Would you like to have e, the Euler's constant, etc., as wel
Someone wrote about pi:
| But it is just a numerical constant, no need to put it into a
class, and
nothing to do with the type_classing of related functions. "e" is not
std. defined, and it doesn't kill people who use exponentials.
But it *isn't* "A" numerical constant.
It is a *different* c
Let's be clear what we are talking about, because I for one am
getting very confused by talk about "putting PI into FLoating as
a class member serves nobody" when it already IS there.
From the report:
class (Fractional a) => Floating a where
pi :: a
exp, log, sqrt :: a -> a
(**), logBase :
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:52:36PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >... Where is the abomination here?
>
> Having THREE different power operators, one as a class member, others as
> normal functions. Do you think this is methodologically sane?
It's a bit odd, but I prefer it to having one hype
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:32:55PM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, David Roundy wrote:
> > I think it's quite sensible, for instance, that passing a negative
> >number as the first argument of (**) with the second argument
> >non-integer leads to a NaN.
>
> It would bette
David Roundy:
jerzy.karczmarczuk:
The power is an abomination for a mathematician. With rational exponent it
may generate algebraic numbers, with any real - transcendental... The
splitting should be more aggressive. It would be good to have *integer*
powers, whose existence is subsumed by the
Henning Thielemann wrote:
It would better to disallow negative bases completely for (**),
because integers should be explicitly typed as integers and then (^^)
can be used. I have already seen (x**2) and (e ** x) with (e = exp 1)
in a Haskell library. Even better would be support for statical
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, David Roundy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 08:53:22PM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, David Roundy wrote:
It seems that you're arguing that (**) is placed in the correct class,
since it's with the transcendental functions, and is implemented in term
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 08:53:22PM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, David Roundy wrote:
> >It seems that you're arguing that (**) is placed in the correct class,
> >since it's with the transcendental functions, and is implemented in terms
> >of those transcendental functions.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Henning Thielemann wrote:
(**) should not exist, because there is no sensible definition for many
operands for real numbers, and it becomes even worse for complex numbers. The
more general the exponent, the more restricted is the basis and vice versa in
order to get sound
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, David Roundy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:29:07PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ChrisK writes:
There are two things in Floating, the power function (**) [ and sqrt ]
and the transcendental functions (trig functions,exp and log, and
constant pi).
Floating could be
David Roundy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:29:07PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ChrisK writes:
There are two things in Floating, the power function (**) [ and sqrt ]
and the transcendental functions (trig functions,exp and log, and
constant pi).
Floating could be spit into two classes,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:29:07PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ChrisK writes:
> >There are two things in Floating, the power function (**) [ and sqrt ]
> >and the transcendental functions (trig functions,exp and log, and
> >constant pi).
> >
> >Floating could be spit into two classes, one for
On 2007-10-10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oh yes, everybody in the world uses in ONE program several overloaded
> versions of pi, of the sine function, etc.
They don't have to be in the same program for overloaded versions to be
semantically useful. They're not strictly necessary, but so?
Having
On 2007-10-10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ChrisK writes:
>
>> Putting 'pi' in the same class as the trigonometric functions is good design.
>
> If you wish so... But:
> Look, this is just a numeric constant.
> Would you like to have e, the Euler's constant, etc., as well, polluting
> the name spac
ChrisK writes:
Putting 'pi' in the same class as the trigonometric functions is good design.
If you wish so... But:
Look, this is just a numeric constant.
Would you like to have e, the Euler's constant, etc., as well, polluting
the name space? What for?
Moving smoothly from single to double
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yitzchak Gale writes:
>> Dan Piponi wrote:
>>> The reusability of Num varies inversely with how many
>>> assumptions you make about it.
>>
>> A default implementation of pi would only increase usability,
>> not decrease it.
>
> Suppose I believe you. (Actually, I am afra
25 matches
Mail list logo
