Jerzy Karczmarczuk writes:
> I am abhorred by the fact that adding ... :: Rational
> changes the lexical meaning of a literal.
It doesn't. A literal with a decimal point always means (fromRational
(X%Y)) for some appropriate X and Y. Adding a type signature changes
the dynamic meaning of the
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:06:23PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> Unfortunately we don't have Real (in
> libraries as far as I remember -- if you have a continued
> fraction implementation of it, it ought to go to the
> libraries list).
Not one, but TWO implementations! One using cont
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:06:23 +0100
Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-07-08 at 10:15+0200 Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> > > If it's a _Rational_, surely you want it to be exactly the
> > > same as you get for 31415926536%100?
> >
> > No. If 'you' means concretely me, then
On 2003-07-08 at 10:15+0200 Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> > If it's a _Rational_, surely you want it to be exactly the
> > same as you get for 31415926536%100?
>
> No. If 'you' means concretely me, then no. Simply no.
> Writing
> pi = 3.1415926536 :: Rational
>
> and expecting to continue
Andrew J Bromage wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
I don't understand the remark that the internal arithmetic is
binary. Sure, it is, so what?
The reason is that you can get the Rational representation even
faster than using continued fractions. :-)
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> I don't understand the remark that the internal arithmetic is
> binary. Sure, it is, so what?
The reason is that you can get the Rational representation even
faster than using continued fractions. :-)
toFrac ::
On 2003-07-07 at 13:40+0200 Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> [...] I believe (still naïvely??) that those socio-psycho-pragmatisms
> which played some role in the definition of the language should
> be better tuned. If I were to write
>
> pi = 3.1415926536 :: Rational
>
> I suppose that I would like t
Ross Paterson wrote:
In the case of 0.1::Rational, it shouldn't be using floating point.
The Report says this means fromRational (1%10), i.e. 1%10.
Aha. Now I have a little chance to die less naïve. All my conversion
proposals are simply out of place, since there should be nothing
to convert. An
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:09:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> On Monday, 2003-07-07, 13:05, CEST, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > In the case of 0.1::Rational, it shouldn't be using floating point. The
> > Report says this means fromRational (1%10), i.e. 1%10.
>
> In which paragraph of the report i
On Monday, 2003-07-07, 13:05, CEST, Ross Paterson wrote:
> [...]
> In the case of 0.1::Rational, it shouldn't be using floating point. The
> Report says this means fromRational (1%10), i.e. 1%10.
In which paragraph of the report is this specified?
> [...]
Wolfgang
_
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> This is less a bug than a Nessie monster which haunts Hugs
> some centuries already, and on Internet the issue has been
> discussed at least 4 times. The old, experimental Gofer
> Prelude numeric functions were sometimes abominab
On 2003-07-07 at 12:01+0200 Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> Jon Fairbairn comments //Steffen Mazanek//:
>
> >>Prelude> 0.1::Rational
> >>13421773 % 134217728
> >>Prelude> 13421773/134217728
> >>0.1
> >>
> >>I do not know how this fraction is calculated, but
> >>it does not fit my expectations :-)
> >
On Monday, 2003-07-07, 01:37, CEST, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> [...]
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:43:18PM +0200, Steffen Mazanek wrote:
> > Prelude> 0.1::Rational
> > 13421773 % 134217728
>
> That's allowed. The Rational only has to be correct to the limit of machine
> precision. (Incidentally, i
Jon Fairbairn comments //Steffen Mazanek//:
Prelude> 0.1::Rational
13421773 % 134217728
Prelude> 13421773/134217728
0.1
I do not know how this fraction is calculated, but
it does not fit my expectations :-)
Remember that internally arithmetic is binary, and that 0.1
can't be expressed exactly as
G'day all.
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:43:18PM +0200, Steffen Mazanek wrote:
> Prelude> 0.1::Rational
> 13421773 % 134217728
That's allowed. The Rational only has to be correct to the limit of
machine precision. (Incidentally, if it's any help in working out how
this Rational was computed, the
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:24:32PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> On 2003-07-05 at 19:43+0200 Steffen Mazanek wrote:
> > a quit funny hugs session:
> >
> > Prelude> 0.5::Rational
> > 1 % 2
> > Prelude> 0.1::Rational
> > 13421773 % 134217728
> > Prelude> 13421773/134217728
> > 0.1
> >
> > I do not
On 2003-07-05 at 19:43+0200 Steffen Mazanek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a quit funny hugs session:
>
> Prelude> 0.5::Rational
> 1 % 2
> Prelude> 0.1::Rational
> 13421773 % 134217728
> Prelude> 13421773/134217728
> 0.1
>
> I do not know how this fraction is calculated, but
> it does not fit my expectatio
17 matches
Mail list logo
