there has been discussions on and off indicating problems with the structure
of the number classes in the prelude. i have found a discussion paper by
mechveliani but i have not found a concrete proposal on the haskell' list of
tickets. i hope i can advance the process by making a concrete proposal
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Andrew U. Frank wrote:
there has been discussions on and off indicating problems with the structure
of the number classes in the prelude. i have found a discussion paper by
mechveliani but i have not found a concrete proposal on the haskell' list of
tickets. i hope i can ad
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Andrew U. Frank wrote:
there has been discussions on and off indicating problems with the structure
of the number classes in the prelude. i have found a discussion paper by
mechveliani but i have not found a concrete proposal on the haskell' list of
tickets. i hope i can ad
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:13:55PM +0200, Andrew U. Frank wrote:
> there has been discussions on and off indicating problems with the structure
> of the number classes in the prelude. i have found a discussion paper by
> mechveliani but i have not found a concrete proposal on the haskell' list of
>
i am most grateful to henning and dylan for their effort in restructuring
the number classes. there seems to be agreement, that the current classes
are not optimal. the decision what goes in a class depends enormously on
what axioms one is assuming for an operation symbol. should * always be
commut
Andrew U. Frank wrote:
should * always be
commutative or is its use for non-commutative types acceptable?
This very question caused much agony in many design meetings for the CAS
Maple. The list of pros and cons on each side is quite large!
There are too many really nice optimizations tha
