Is it? our Ord class already violates the IEEE spec (and can't help it), so we might as well violate it and be mathematically useful.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bos@serpentine.com">bos@serpentine.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Daniel Fischer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel.is.fischer@googlemail.com" target="_blank">daniel.is.fischer@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Proposal: Provide Double and Float with Eq and Ord instances that introduce<br>
a total order.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I am strongly against this proposal, as it is in an area that is particularly poorly understood by most programmers (even experts). While the current behaviour may be undesirable from some points of view, at least it is consistent with most other programming languages - and this is one of the few areas where I think that's important.</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Libraries mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Libraries@haskell.org">Libraries@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>