Kind of a random question for today :).
We all know that we can write map in terms of foldr:
> map f = foldr ((:) . f) []
as I understand it, this is essentially because foldr encapsulates all
primitive recursive functions and since map is primitive recursive, we
can implement it in terms of a f
Hi
> There's nothing wrong with this in principle; the difficulty is that
> when you say
>
> mantissa + 4
>
> you aren't saying which float type to get the mantissa of. Earlier
> messages have outlined workarounds, but in some ways the "real" solution
> is to provide a syntax for type appli
At 2003-06-30 01:55, Ralf Hinze wrote:
>What about
> mantissa (| Double |) + 4 ?
This would work perfectly with my method if (| Double |) were syntactic
sugar for (mkType :: Type Double) or similar. I really think it's the
most straightforward way of doing it and I hazard the easiest to
> If we could only figure out a good syntax for
> (optional) type application, it would deal rather nicely with many of
> these cases. Trouble is, '<..>' gets confused with comparisons. And
> when there are multiple foralls, it's not obvious what order to supply
> the type parameters.
What about
If you have a class like this
class FloatTraits a where
mantissa :: Int
then the type of mantissa is
mantissa :: forall a. FloatTraits a => Int
There's nothing wrong with this in principle; the difficulty is that
when you say
mantissa + 4
you aren't saying wh
