Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: The instability of Haskell libraries

2010-04-27 Thread Christopher Lane Hinson
I'm so sorry. I mean to say that there is no part of the standard prelude that is the "numeric" part. I was aware of the numeric-prelude package, which is good work and deserves recognition. Friendly, --Lane On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Henning Thielemann wrote: Christopher Lane Hinson schrieb:

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: The instability of Haskell libraries

2010-04-27 Thread Henning Thielemann
Christopher Lane Hinson schrieb: > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > >>> I despair that a better Numeric hierarchy will never make it into >>> Haskell. >> >> >> I thought the main reason for that was that nobody could agree on a >> "better" hierarchy that was actually usabl

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: The instability of Haskell libraries

2010-04-27 Thread Christopher Lane Hinson
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: I despair that a better Numeric hierarchy will never make it into Haskell. I thought the main reason for that was that nobody could agree on a "better" hierarchy that was actually usable. (Nobody wants to chain 10 typeclasses together t

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: The instability of Haskell libraries

2010-04-26 Thread Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
On Apr 27, 2010, at 00:55 , Aaron Denney wrote: I despair that a better Numeric hierarchy will never make it into Haskell. I thought the main reason for that was that nobody could agree on a "better" hierarchy that was actually usable. (Nobody wants to chain 10 typeclasses together to get

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: The instability of Haskell libraries

2010-04-26 Thread Ivan Miljenovic
On 27 April 2010 14:55, Aaron Denney wrote: > I despair that a better Numeric hierarchy will never make it into > Haskell. I think the reason it hasn't is because I for one still haven't seen a fully implemented such hierarchy that's worth using. Then again, most of my numerical calculations are

[Haskell-cafe] Re: The instability of Haskell libraries

2010-04-26 Thread Aaron Denney
On 2010-04-24, John Goerzen wrote: > It is a funny thing, because our fundamental libraries *have* had time > to settle down, in a sense. In another sense, I must say that the > innovations we have seen recently have been sorely needed and are > unquestionably a good thing. Overall, agreed.

[Haskell-cafe] Re: The instability of Haskell libraries

2010-04-24 Thread Jon Fairbairn
John Goerzen writes: > It is somewhat of a surprise to me that I'm making this > post, given that there was a day when I thought Haskell was > moving too slow ;-) > > My problem here is that it has become rather difficult to > write software in Haskell that will still work with newer > compiler a