On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 07:17:57AM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:09:59 +1300, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Can you demonstrate a revised hierarchy without Eq? What would happen to
Ord, and the numeric classes that require Eq because they need signum?
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:25:46 -0500, Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Can you elaborate? What do you mean by signum for functions?
The pointwise signum?
Yes.
Then abs would be the pointwise abs as well, right?
Yes.
That might work, but I'm nervous because I don't know the semantics
On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 11:25:46AM -0500, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Can you elaborate? What do you mean by signum for functions? The
pointwise signum? Then abs would be the pointwise abs as well, right?
That might work, but I'm nervous because I don't know the semantics
for signum/abs in such
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:09:59 +1300, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Can you demonstrate a revised hierarchy without Eq? What would happen to
Ord, and the numeric classes that require Eq because they need signum?
signum doesn't require Eq. You can
Fergus Henderson wrote:
On 09-Feb-2001, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrik Jansson wrote:
The fact that equality can be trivially defined as bottom does not imply
that it should be a superclass of Num, it only explains that there is an
ugly way of working around the
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:37:28PM +1300, Brian Boutel wrote:
Let me restate my question more carefully:
Can you demonstrate a revised hierarchy without Eq? What would happen to
Ord and the numeric classes with default class method definitions that
use (==) either explicitly or in pattern
On 11-Feb-2001, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fergus Henderson wrote:
On 09-Feb-2001, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrik Jansson wrote:
The fact that equality can be trivially defined as bottom does not imply
that it should be a superclass of Num, it only
