On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Ross Paterson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:57:56AM -0400, Cale Gibbard wrote: > > Num itself needs to be split, but we can't do it sanely without > > something like class aliases. > > I think that a finer grain numeric hierarchy, while retaining Num, etc, > is feasible without changing the language: unlike the case of monads, > the people who will be defining instances of numeric classes are the > very ones who are inconvenienced by the current hierarchy. The main > impact on clients of the classes is that some functions would have > more general types.
There are many Num instances around in libraries where people wrap to external libraries: functionalMetapost, CSound wrapper in Haskore, SuperCollider (GSL too?). What about Num (algebraically Ring) instances of polynomials, residue classes and other such advanced mathematical objects? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
