Conal, Thanks for looking into this! Making (:-*) into a proper type seems promising. I did try wrapping (:-*) in a newtype but that didn't help (although I didn't expect it to).
I see you just uploaded a new version of vector-space; what's new in 0.6.2? -Brent On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 10:28:45AM -0700, Conal Elliott wrote: > Oh! I'd completely forgotten about this idea. Looking at Data.LinearMap in > vector-space, I see a comment about exactly this ambiguity, as well as the > start of a new module that wraps a data type around the linear map > representation. I don't recall whether I got stuck or just distracted. > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 3:46 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy > <r...@cse.unsw.edu.au>wrote: > > > On 17/04/2010, at 11:00, Conal Elliott wrote: > > > > > I'm unsure now, but I think I tried making Basis a data type (not syn) > > and ran into the problem I mentioned above. The Basis *synonyms* also have > > HasTrie instances, which is crucially important. If we switch to > > (injective) data types, then we lose the HasTrie instances. I'd be okay > > with defining HasTrie instances (preferably via "deriving") for the > > associated Basis data types, but I couldn't figure out how to. Maybe it's > > not possible currently, or maybe I just didn't know how. > > > > Could you perhaps make (:-*) a proper type rather than a synonym? That > > would help with the ambiguity. > > > > Roman > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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