Hi,
sorry for answering to such an old thread.
David Menendez d...@zednenem.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Tillmann Rendel
ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de wrote:
Hi,
Uwe Schmidt wrote:
In the standard Haskell classes we can find both cases,
even within a single class.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Jean-Marie Gaillourdet
j...@gaillourdet.net wrote:
Hi,
sorry for answering to such an old thread.
David Menendez d...@zednenem.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Tillmann Rendel
ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de wrote:
Hi,
Uwe Schmidt wrote:
On 30 October 2010 22:44, Uwe Schmidt u...@fh-wedel.de wrote:
Another possible argument: large type classes can look daunting for
both implementors and users, even if only one or two methods need to
be defined for a minimal instantiation (I'm tring to work out what to
do here myself, as I have
Hi Ivan,
Another possible argument: large type classes can look daunting for
both implementors and users, even if only one or two methods need to
be defined for a minimal instantiation (I'm tring to work out what to
do here myself, as I have some typeclasses that for efficiency reasons
it
Dear Haskellers,
I've a question about type class design. When
developing the set of functions for a class, there
are often two or more functions, let's say f and g,
where the semantics of g can be expressed by f.
When writing down the code, there are two choices
for g. First g is included in
Hi,
Uwe Schmidt wrote:
In the standard Haskell classes we can find both cases,
even within a single class.
Eq with (==) as f and (/=) as g belongs to the 1. case
Note that the case of (==) and (/=) is slightly different, because not
only can (/=) be defined in terms (==), but also the other
On 29 October 2010 23:28, Uwe Schmidt u...@fh-wedel.de wrote:
Dear Haskellers,
I've a question about type class design. When
developing the set of functions for a class, there
are often two or more functions, let's say f and g,
where the semantics of g can be expressed by f.
When writing
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Tillmann Rendel
ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de wrote:
Note that the case of (==) and (/=) is slightly different, because not only
can (/=) be defined in terms (==), but also the other way around. The
default definitions of (==) and (/=) are mutually
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Tillmann Rendel
ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de wrote:
Hi,
Uwe Schmidt wrote:
In the standard Haskell classes we can find both cases,
even within a single class.
Eq with (==) as f and (/=) as g belongs to the 1. case
Note that the case of (==) and (/=)
