How to describe this bug?
twhitehead at gmail.com
Tue Jul 10 18:29:25 CEST 2012
On July 10, 2012 10:39:41 Colin Adams wrote:
> Sure they would be better modelled that way, but the whole point of using
> floating point arithmetic is to sacrifice accuracy for performance, is it
True. I just find it interesting that some types have a builtin Nothing value.
Some further examples are pointer (where NULL is Nothing) and
clamped/saturation arithmetic (where min and max values are Nothing).
It would be nice if somehow they could be unified at the top level without the
performance penalty associated with a genuine Maybe value.
Another possibility might be to consider NaN to encode bottom in Float#. When
you constructed Float from Float# with a NaN it would give bottom.
Would the existance of unboxed lifted types be a problem?
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users