Improve documentation for Real

[David Feuer]

Perhaps that's the answer, but it seems frankly bizarre to call a class
Real if `Real s` actually means that `s` is a subset of the rational
numbers.

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 8:02 PM Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020, David Feuer wrote:
>
> > The Real class has one method:
> > -- | the rational equivalent of its real argument with full precision
> >
> > toRational :: a -> Rational
> >
> > This is ... pretty weird. What does "full precision" mean? For integral
> and floating point types, it's fine. It's
> > not at all meaningful for
> >
> > 1. Computable reals
> > 2. Real algebraic numbers
> > 3. Real numbers expressible in radicals
> > 4. Rational numbers augmented with some extra numbers like pi
> > 5. Geometrically constructable reals
> > 6. Etc.
>
> They cannot have Real instances, then. Right?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20201223/f616a250/attachment.html>