[Haskell-cafe] Why does the class called "Real" support only rationals, and not all reals?

[bretm]

Awesomely complete response. Thank you.


Henning Thielemann wrote:
> 
> There are several things that are inconvenient in the numeric part of
> Haskell 98 Prelude. As always I suggest a look at alternative numeric
> class hierarchies, like NumericPrelude:
> 
> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Applications_and_libraries/Mathematics#Type_class_hierarchies
> 

I definitely will.


Henning Thielemann wrote:
> 
> Is your approach more like symbolic calculation or more like a
> representation for computable reals?
> 
> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Applications_and_libraries/Mathematics#Number_representations
> 

Computable reals, specifically continued fraction representation. I know I'm
reinventing the wheel here (I was using an OCaml implementation called
ContFrac as a guide to the algorithms) but I'm just playing with this as a
vehicle for learning Haskell.

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-does-the-class-called-%22Real%22-support-only-rationals%2C-and-not-all-reals--tf3862820.html#a10951802
Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.