On 2006-09-11, Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
Yes, they would need to move definitions around. I think it'd be worth it for Haskell'. -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
