Mixing
Type level real (floating point) numbers
0
I know that there exists the Nat type family ie the GHC.TypeLits module.
I was looking to see if there exists a similar thing for real numbers?
haskell types
asked Jan 2 at 21:27
Cjen1Cjen1
9351733
add a comment |
0
I know that there exists the Nat type family ie the GHC.TypeLits module.
I was looking to see if there exists a similar thing for real numbers?
haskell types
asked Jan 2 at 21:27
Cjen1Cjen1
9351733
2
It's getting closed as a library recommendation question, but rephrased it is interesting I think. Rational numbers can of course be represented with two type-level nats, while any scheme you use to encode irrational numbers will be limited to a minuscule countable subset of the reals. And I guess you could implement that in terms of Nat too...?
– jberryman
Jan 2 at 22:09
1
You could probably port computable reals to the type level, but unfortunately the GHC type checker's current performance problems with type family-heavy code will likely make that impractical. I ported some of the core ofData.Maptosingletons, and a map with just a few dozen entries leads to seriously slow compilation.
– dfeuer
Jan 2 at 22:11
add a comment |
0
0
0
I know that there exists the Nat type family ie the GHC.TypeLits module.
I was looking to see if there exists a similar thing for real numbers?
haskell types
asked Jan 2 at 21:27
Cjen1Cjen1
9351733
I know that there exists the Nat type family ie the GHC.TypeLits module.
I was looking to see if there exists a similar thing for real numbers?
haskell types
haskell types
asked Jan 2 at 21:27
Cjen1Cjen1
9351733
asked Jan 2 at 21:27
Cjen1Cjen1
9351733
asked Jan 2 at 21:27
Cjen1Cjen1
9351733
asked Jan 2 at 21:27
Cjen1Cjen1
9351733
asked Jan 2 at 21:27
Cjen1Cjen1
9351733
9351733
2
It's getting closed as a library recommendation question, but rephrased it is interesting I think. Rational numbers can of course be represented with two type-level nats, while any scheme you use to encode irrational numbers will be limited to a minuscule countable subset of the reals. And I guess you could implement that in terms of Nat too...?
– jberryman
Jan 2 at 22:09
1
You could probably port computable reals to the type level, but unfortunately the GHC type checker's current performance problems with type family-heavy code will likely make that impractical. I ported some of the core ofData.Maptosingletons, and a map with just a few dozen entries leads to seriously slow compilation.
– dfeuer
Jan 2 at 22:11
add a comment |
2
It's getting closed as a library recommendation question, but rephrased it is interesting I think. Rational numbers can of course be represented with two type-level nats, while any scheme you use to encode irrational numbers will be limited to a minuscule countable subset of the reals. And I guess you could implement that in terms of Nat too...?
– jberryman
Jan 2 at 22:09
1
You could probably port computable reals to the type level, but unfortunately the GHC type checker's current performance problems with type family-heavy code will likely make that impractical. I ported some of the core ofData.Maptosingletons, and a map with just a few dozen entries leads to seriously slow compilation.
– dfeuer
Jan 2 at 22:11
2
2
It's getting closed as a library recommendation question, but rephrased it is interesting I think. Rational numbers can of course be represented with two type-level nats, while any scheme you use to encode irrational numbers will be limited to a minuscule countable subset of the reals. And I guess you could implement that in terms of Nat too...?
– jberryman
Jan 2 at 22:09
It's getting closed as a library recommendation question, but rephrased it is interesting I think. Rational numbers can of course be represented with two type-level nats, while any scheme you use to encode irrational numbers will be limited to a minuscule countable subset of the reals. And I guess you could implement that in terms of Nat too...?
– jberryman
Jan 2 at 22:09
1
1
You could probably port computable reals to the type level, but unfortunately the GHC type checker's current performance problems with type family-heavy code will likely make that impractical. I ported some of the core of
Data.Map to singletons, and a map with just a few dozen entries leads to seriously slow compilation.– dfeuer
Jan 2 at 22:11
You could probably port computable reals to the type level, but unfortunately the GHC type checker's current performance problems with type family-heavy code will likely make that impractical. I ported some of the core of
Data.Map to singletons, and a map with just a few dozen entries leads to seriously slow compilation.– dfeuer
Jan 2 at 22:11
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54013398%2ftype-level-real-floating-point-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54013398%2ftype-level-real-floating-point-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
It's getting closed as a library recommendation question, but rephrased it is interesting I think. Rational numbers can of course be represented with two type-level nats, while any scheme you use to encode irrational numbers will be limited to a minuscule countable subset of the reals. And I guess you could implement that in terms of Nat too...?
– jberryman
Jan 2 at 22:09
1
You could probably port computable reals to the type level, but unfortunately the GHC type checker's current performance problems with type family-heavy code will likely make that impractical. I ported some of the core of
Data.Maptosingletons, and a map with just a few dozen entries leads to seriously slow compilation.– dfeuer
Jan 2 at 22:11