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 . <chessai1996@gmail.com> wrote:

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