There’s at least two reasons why I think this would be a bad idea
1) everyone uses e as a local variable name, or at least it happens often
enough. This would breaklots of code
2 ) I’m not sure if there’s ever a better definition than exp 1. Is there?
3) more strongly , does every instance in the Wild give a full ish
precision exact up to representation limits answer at exp 1,?
I only thought of the name space issue after I stated writing this email ,
but I think that kills it.. but I am genuinely curious : can we treat exp 1
as being the actual definition for any all quality instances ?
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:14 AM chessai .
We have the 'pi' constant in the floating typeclass and some trigonometric functions, as well as things like exp/log/expm1/log1p.
Why not provide an 'e' constant?
A default implementation could just be 'exp 1'. _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries