Err, I'm not seeing the danger of this (+) :: forall a. (Num a) => a -> a -> a
Doesn't this require the two parameters to be the same instance of Num? On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Sittampalam, Ganesh < ganesh.sittampa...@credit-suisse.com> wrote: > Stephan Friedrichs wrote: > > > When looking for an xor function, I found one in Data.Bits but > > couldn't use it for Bool, because Bool is no instance of Bits and of > > Num (which would be necessary, because it's "class (Num b) => Bits > > b"). My question is: Why not? > > > > [...] > > quite trivial... Why is this not part of base? Or am I missing > > something? > > One reason would be that we don't want 1 + True to typecheck, even if it > does have a sensible interpretation. > > Ganesh > > > =============================================================================== > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: > http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html > > > =============================================================================== > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
