Doug McIlroy wrote:
> A fragment of an attempt to make pairs serve as complex numbers,
> using ghc/hugs extensions:
>
> instance Num a => Num (a,a) where
> (x,y) * (u,v) = (x*u-y*v, x*v+y*u)
>
> Unfortunately, type inference isn't strong enough to cope with
>
> (1,1)*(1,1)
>
> Why shouldn't it be strengthened to do so?
The problem is that type classes are an "open" system. Although
it's obvious that your instance is the only one in this code
that can be used to type-check (1,1), that doesn't preclude new
code adding an instance that could make it behave differently.
I had hoped that the code below (GHC 6.10+) would work, but it
just sends GHC into a loop when you actually try to typecheck
(1,1). I don't know if that's a bug in GHC or a misunderstanding
on my part of how the typechecking should work.
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances, TypeFamilies #-}
instance (a~b, Num a) => Num (a, b) where
fromInteger k = (fromInteger k, fromInteger 0)
(x,y) * (u,v) = (x*u-y*v, x*v+y*u)
Ganesh
==============================================================================
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications
disclaimer:
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
==============================================================================
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
