> I too was put off by the Num issues though--strange mixture of sophisticated > category theory and lack of a sensible hierarchy of algebraic objects.
Perhaps we should replace CT with lattice theoretic thinking (e.g. functor = monotonic function) before cleaning up the type-related mess? See: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/269479.html > so count me in on an effort to make Haskell more mathematical. For me that > probably starts with the semigroup/group/ring setup, and good > arbitrary-precision as well as approximate linear algebra support. I agree: semigoups like lattices are everywhere. Then there could be a uniform treatment of linear algebra, polynomial equations, operator algebra, etc. So, perhaps haste is not a good advice here? -Andrzej _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
