On 2008 Jun 3, at 4:19, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Jon Lang dataweaver-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
e <g>.
Learn from the Haskell folks, who are still trying to untangle the
mess they
made of their numeric hierarchy (see
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Mathematical_prelude_discussion).
I'll look it over. That said, note that we're not dealing with a
class hierarchy here; we're dealing with role composition, which
needn't be organized into an overarching hierarchal structure to work
properly.
Yes. If you look at my specdoc, the ideas I've identified thus far
are basically driven by which functions are sensible on which
types. The basic math functions basically define the
"which functions are sensible on which types" is exactly where Haskell
is messed up; basically, what makes sense varies according to whose
notion of what a given numeric type is. Are you thinking in terms of
what current machines do natively? In terms of set theory (a popular
alternative among Haskell-folk)? In terms of what most people
consider sensible (if you can in fact nail that particular bit of
jelly down; OTOH, it may be the most "Perlish" way of doing it)?
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
