W liście z śro, 22-10-2003, godz. 06:15, Kenny pisze:
> instance (Myeq a,Myeq [a]) => Myeq [a] where
> myeq (x:xs) (y:ys) = (myeq x y)&&(myeq xs ys)
>
> I want to make the 2nd call of myeq to be of an instance function
> from the context instead of a recursive call.
Why? Since there can be at
Hi Simon,
--- Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know why you would possibly want this.
yes, in this example there isn't any obvious reason to
motivate us writing such instance, but I am interested
in how GHC now handles coinduction in type class. It
will be neat if we can
| -- convententionally, we write:
| {-
| instance (Myeq a) => Myeq [a] where
| myeq (x:xs) (y:ys) = (myeq x y)&&(myeq xs ys)
| -}
|
| instance (Myeq a,Myeq [a]) => Myeq [a] where
| myeq (x:xs) (y:ys) = (myeq x y)&&(myeq xs ys)
|
|
|
| I want to make the 2nd call of myeq to be of an
| i
Hi all,
currently I got this program of Eq:
module Myeq where
class Myeq a where
myeq :: a -> a -> Bool
instance Myeq Int where
myeq i j = (i==j)
-- convententionally, we write:
{-
instance (Myeq a) => Myeq [a] where
myeq (x:xs) (y:ys) = (myeq x y)&&(myeq xs ys)
-}
instance (Myeq
