On 28 February 2006 18:42, Jacques Carette wrote:
What *problem* are you actually trying to solve here?
The problem that 'realToFrac (0/0 :: Float) :: Double' doesn't give you
NaN, and similarly for the other special float values.
If it is
conversion between floating point types, then there
Cale Gibbard wrote:
This change means that Rational is no longer a field. It makes me feel
uneasy at least. Should we really expect realToFrac to propagate those
values? Look at its type:
realToFrac :: (Real a, Fractional b) = a - b
Nothing about the Fractional class would seem to indicate
On 28/02/06, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:44:04AM -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
I'm almost scared to ask: does this mean we need negative zero as well?
good point. probably.
This change means that Rational is no longer a field. It makes me feel
uneasy at
John Meacham wrote:
The proposed solution was to add NaN, +Infinity, and -Infinity to
rational with the representations 0 :% 0, 1 :% 0, and -1 :% 0
respectively. Seems straightforward, (and generally useful) but we
should make sure not to forget it for haskell-prime.
I'm not necessarily
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:50:38PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
The proposed solution was to add NaN, +Infinity, and -Infinity to
rational with the representations 0 :% 0, 1 :% 0, and -1 :% 0
respectively. Seems straightforward, (and generally useful) but we
should make sure not to forget it
