Re: [Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level?

[Yaron Minsky <yminsky@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:45:53 +0200, Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr> wrote:

> As to whether equality should be defined on floats, there are pros and
> cons.  My standpoint is that it's eventually better to stick to
> established standards (that is, IEEE float arithmetic) rather than try
> to reinvent a wheel likely to be even squarer than these standards.
> Prof. Kahan found it worthwhile to fully define equality over floats;
> I'll abide by his wisdom.

For what it's worth, I've found equality types for floats to be VERY
useful.  That's because I do a lot of data munging which involves
moving data (including floats) around from place to place, and so all
I'm relying on is the fact that when you copy a float from one place
to another, then the resulting float is equal to the original.

The only thing that kills me in this context is nan, which turns out
not to be equal to anything.  I've already spent too much time on the
list complaining about that, however...

y

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners