On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
I despair that a better Numeric hierarchy will never make it into
Haskell.
I thought the main reason for that was that nobody could agree on a better
hierarchy that was actually usable. (Nobody wants to chain 10 typeclasses
together to
Christopher Lane Hinson schrieb:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
I despair that a better Numeric hierarchy will never make it into
Haskell.
I thought the main reason for that was that nobody could agree on a
better hierarchy that was actually usable. (Nobody wants
I'm so sorry. I mean to say that there is no part of the standard prelude that is the
numeric part. I was aware of the numeric-prelude package, which is good work
and deserves recognition.
Friendly,
--Lane
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Christopher Lane Hinson schrieb:
On 2010-04-24, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
It is a funny thing, because our fundamental libraries *have* had time
to settle down, in a sense. In another sense, I must say that the
innovations we have seen recently have been sorely needed and are
unquestionably a good thing.
On 27 April 2010 14:55, Aaron Denney wno...@ofb.net wrote:
I despair that a better Numeric hierarchy will never make it into
Haskell.
I think the reason it hasn't is because I for one still haven't seen a
fully implemented such hierarchy that's worth using.
Then again, most of my numerical
On Apr 27, 2010, at 00:55 , Aaron Denney wrote:
I despair that a better Numeric hierarchy will never make it into
Haskell.
I thought the main reason for that was that nobody could agree on a
better hierarchy that was actually usable. (Nobody wants to chain
10 typeclasses together to get
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org writes:
It is somewhat of a surprise to me that I'm making this
post, given that there was a day when I thought Haskell was
moving too slow ;-)
My problem here is that it has become rather difficult to
write software in Haskell that will still work with
