The proposal is worded the way it is to get a strict monotonic improvement over the status quo.

With them in the class it becomes possible to get the instances fixed. With them outside of the class in some needless extra hair-splitting class added on later like we have to use today, then someone who would otherwise just use them is needlessly hoist on the dilemma of using a more restrictive class and just accepting the fact that they can't work with third party numeric types for the most part at all, or reverting to the poor version of the numerics to widen their audience. 

This leads to the equivalent of needless divisions between 'traverse' vs. 'mapM' forever.

With defaults you are never worse off than you are today, but defaults you always have to worry about whether you should use them. 

Let's look at it another way.

By putting in defaults the costs of the proposal are borne by the people who want to use the new feature.

Moreover, if we should decide to adopt wren's half-suggestion of continuing to expand support for other numerical primitives that have broad support we could do so without  great deal of fanfare, and the handful of people who actually do numeric computation can talk to the handful of people who write numeric instances that high up the foodchain to get the important ones fixed in packages like vector-space, linear, diagrams, etc.

Without defaults everyone who ever wrote a Floating instance by hand would need to know about log1p or wren's log1mexp and they would be forced into using CPP in their code to work around a feature they don't care about and if they couldn't be bothered then the user who wanted a bit of extra precision now just starts crashing. The risk averse would simply take the path with worse precision or get shoved back into the world of code duplication and 'mapM' vs 'traverse'.

I know for me personally it would force me to double the amount of numeric code I write, just to maximize my audience. I really don't want to go there. I just want to be able to call the function I mean, and to be able to talk to the right people to make it do the right thing.

-Edward


On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 7:32 PM, John Lato <jwlato@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:
With the defaults the code is never worse than it is forced to be right now and users do not need to create CPP blocked code to work around this addition.

I usually like defaults, and avoiding CPP is good, however with the defaults users will expect better code than they get.  We aren't doing anyone any favors by introducing the possibility of silent floating-point precision loss from 'exp1m'.  An "error" default would be better.

Besides, the code would be worse than it's forced to be now.  At least now users who care about this run headlong into the issue.  If we provide exp1m and log1p, users who use those functions should get the advertised behavior, not loss of precision (I realize not all types would lose precision, but some will).
 

Without the defaults this becomes a much bigger request, as I'd be asking _every_ author of Floating to add CPP to their packages for a feature they never heard of and probably will never use, and in that situation we'd have to export it from Prelude.

It's perfectly fine to leave some methods blank; IMHO the resulting run-time error is better than an incorrect default.  Plus, it's useful for library authors to know that the class has changed; if a default is provided everything will build properly and there is no compile-time indication that library authors should adjust their code.

Originally I was +1 for everything except the defaults, but I'm reconsidering.  If this is something that most Floating instance authors don't know about and probably won't ever use, do these functions really belong in that class?  Why not make a separate class for fused algorithms?

John L.

 

-Edward


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Scott Turner <2haskell@pkturner.org> wrote:
On 2014-04-17 15:08, Edward Kmett wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Henning Thielemann <schlepptop@henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
I think one should add default implementations. They don't have an numerical advantage but they save programmers from code breakage.
 
I included the default definitions in code snippet in the proposal, so user code that remains unaware of them would be unaffected, while packages like compensated, or a wrapper around libqd could implement them as needed.

expm1 :: Floating a => a -> a
expm1 x = exp x - 1

log1p :: Floating a => a -> a
log1p x = log (1 + x)
On the contrary, code that explicitly uses these functions is likely to need the precision. Defaults would cause subtle breakage.

-- Scott


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries