Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Don't forget, GHC is open source: if this lack really was dumb and
annoying you, there was nothing stopping you from rectifying this
situation up until now.
Except that, in the real world, this is actually completely infeasible.
Yes, I know it's the basic
Victor Nazarov wrote:
I think it is more simple like:
class Bijection a b where
...
type LeftToRight a = (Bijection a b) = b
type RightToLeft b = (Bijection a b) = a
Hmm, yes... That looks like it could work.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On 8/4/10 11:40 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Don't forget, GHC is open source: if this lack really was dumb and
annoying you, there was nothing stopping you from rectifying this
situation up until now.
Except that, in the real world, this is actually completely
On 5 August 2010 16:48, Gregory Crosswhite gcr...@phys.washington.edu wrote:
On 8/4/10 11:40 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Don't forget, GHC is open source: if this lack really was dumb and
annoying you, there was nothing stopping you from rectifying this
situation
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 5 August 2010 16:48, Gregory Crosswhite gcr...@phys.washington.edu wrote:
On 8/4/10 11:40 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Don't forget, GHC is open source: if this lack really was dumb and
annoying you, there was nothing
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com writes:
Well *I* didn't say that anything was dumb. I was merely pointing out
that the much-touched do it yourself benefit of OSS is actually out
of most people's reach. There surely can't be many people alive on
Earth who actually understand type
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 August 2010 16:48, Gregory Crosswhite gcr...@phys.washington.edu wrote:
On 8/4/10 11:40 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Don't forget, GHC is open source: if this lack really
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually think it's a
testament to the quality of GHC that things just work so often that
I can be so surprised when they don't.
Well said. That's the feeling most Haskellers have, and that's part
of the awesomeness of
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
So I believe the final way to do this, which is not yet implemented,
works something like this:
type family LeftToRight a
type family RightToLeft b
class (LeftToRight a ~ b, RightToLeft b ~ a) = Bijection a b where
On 4 August 2010 03:45, Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
So I believe the final way to do this, which is not yet implemented,
works something like this:
type family LeftToRight a
type family RightToLeft b
class (LeftToRight a ~ b, RightToLeft b ~ a) = Bijection a b where
...
I
OK, so if you do something like
class Container c where
type Element c :: *
then we now have a clean and concise way to discover what type of
element any given container holds. (Regardless of whether it's element
type is parametric, hard-coded, class-constrained or anything else.) I
So I believe the final way to do this, which is not yet implemented,
works something like this:
type family LeftToRight a
type family RightToLeft b
class (LeftToRight a ~ b, RightToLeft b ~ a) = Bijection a b where
...
I agree, the fact that this doesn't work is really dumb.
I used a
On 03.08.2010 21:25, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Now suppose that instead of a container type with an associated element
type, what we want is several pairs of types having a one-to-one
relationship, and we want to be able to traverse that relationship in
either direction. What's the best way to do
13 matches
Mail list logo
