On Tue, 2 May 2000, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> Well, all this is ambiguous. A "big picture" and
> "something moderate" contradict themselves IMHO.
Not necessary. How about moderately big picture? :-)
Seriously, I really worry that Sergey's initiative
does not receive
A sane mathematical structure - or rather: sane description
of math structures in Haskell is something which worries
me for years. On this list, on funct. newsgroup and elsewhere
this is a recurring, cyclic theme.
-- And we have still this horrible Num hierarchy, which does
not correspond to anyt
Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First off, from what I remember of it, I like the BAP, too, having
stumbled over the limitation of the Haskell types a couple of times.
> + What extra features would be really desired and, first of
> all - WHY? How will it make Haskell
On Mon, 1 May 2000, Tom Pledger wrote:
>
> Here's an example of something which could be done, without major
> language extensions: insert a partial ordering class between Eq and
> Ord. (It's something I've advocated before, so I won't dwell on it
> this time.)
That's why some sort o
Jan Skibinski writes:
>
> It appears to me that we have reached some impasse
> in a design of basic mathematical structure for
> Haskell 2. Sergey's proposal "Basic Algebra Proposal"
> is there, but for variety of reasons (a language
> barrier being probably one of
It appears to me that we have reached some impasse
in a design of basic mathematical structure for
Haskell 2. Sergey's proposal "Basic Algebra Proposal"
is there, but for variety of reasons (a language
barrier being probably one of them) it does not seem to
