question of decimal pointed literals
Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:29:16 -0600
> There is no problem, [the meaning of numeric literals is] clearly specified by the report.
> (There is a problem with Hugs, it doesn't implement literals properly.
> Or has that ancient bug been fixed?)
Lennart is absolutely right, the report is quite unambiguous and there is
(still) a bug in Hugs.
If this bug were to be fixed (I wouldn't hold my breath), we'd promptly
fall over a bunch of other infelicities in the implementation of
floating point and friends.
The Hugs documentation clearly states that you shouldn't use Hugs for
numeric work - i.e., for work where the accuracy of non-integer arithmetic
is an issue.
Comments on the state of Hugs should be directed to email@example.com
(and should ideally be accompanied by patches purporting to fix