Wouldn't this be a good discussion for the Haskell Prime List?
Reilly Hayes
+1 415 388 3903 (office)
+1 415 846 1827 (mobile)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 2, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
I too was put off by the Num issues though--strange mixture of
sophisticated
category theory and lack of a sensible hierarchy of algebraic
objects.
Perhaps we should replace CT with lattice theoretic thinking (e.g.
functor = monotonic
function) before cleaning up the type-related mess?
See: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/269479.html
so count me in on an effort to make Haskell more mathematical.
For me that
probably starts with the semigroup/group/ring setup, and good
arbitrary-precision as well as approximate linear algebra support.
I agree: semigoups like lattices are everywhere.
Then there could be a uniform treatment of linear algebra,
polynomial equations, operator
algebra, etc. So, perhaps haste is not a good advice here?
-Andrzej
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
