On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 07:57 +0000, Aaron Denney wrote: > On 2007-10-11, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes. I am very eager to criticize your wording. To wit, I'm still > > failing to understand what your position is. Is it fair to say that > > your answer to my question, why pi has no default implementation, is `in > > fact, pi shouldn't be a method of Floating anyway'? > > That was how I was reading him. > > > Btw: I am arguing that I (still) don't understand why the line > > > > pi = acos (-1) > > > > or something like it doesn't appear at an appropriate point in the > > Standard Prelude, given that the line > > > > pi :: a > > > > appears nearby said point. I am eager to be enlightened. But I haven't > > been, yet. > > You would have to ask the committee. But I think it's a bad idea to > have such a default (or 4 * atan 1, or ...) because of calculational > issues. It's not a useful default, except for toy uses. Yeah, it works > "fine" for float and double on hardware with FPUs. But I want to be > told that I haven't implemented it, rather than it getting a really > awful default. Most of the defaulting in other classes are minor > wrappers, such as converting between (<=) and compare, not actual > algorithmic implementations, which can pull in strongly less efficient > implementations.
Fair enough. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
