That's what I suggested might be the case and this makes sense. Thank you :)
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Mike Izbicki
My thoughts exactly, I think this would be *really* cool as an HLint-style tool.
The main problem with this is that numerically stable expressions are often very opaque. If you look at the first example in the README, I would definitely rather have:
w far near = -(2 * far * near) / (far - near)
in my code than
w near far = if near < -1.7210442634149447e+81 then (2.0 * near / (near - far)) * far else if near < 8.364504563556443e+16 then (2.0 * near) / ((near - far) / far) else ((2.0 * near) / (near - far)) * far
One of the reasons I use Haskell is because the code is "at the level of thought" and GHC translates this into awesome speed without the programmer needing to worry about the gory details in most cases. I want that same experience for numerical stability. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com