question of decimal pointed literals

Alastair Reid
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
(and should ideally be accompanied by patches purporting to fix
 the problem).

Alastair Reid