How to describe this bug?

Tyson Whitehead twhitehead at
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
> not?

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?

Cheers!  -Tyson

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list