On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.eduwrote:
Conal,
Thanks for looking into this! Making (:-*) into a proper type seems
promising. I did try wrapping (:-*) in a newtype but that didn't
help (although I didn't expect it to).
What do you mean by a proper type?
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:40:25AM -0700, Conal Elliott wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.eduwrote:
Conal,
Thanks for looking into this! Making (:-*) into a proper type seems
promising. I did try wrapping (:-*) in a newtype but that didn't
help
Conal,
Thanks for looking into this! Making (:-*) into a proper type seems
promising. I did try wrapping (:-*) in a newtype but that didn't
help (although I didn't expect it to).
I see you just uploaded a new version of vector-space; what's new in
0.6.2?
-Brent
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at
On 17/04/2010, at 11:00, Conal Elliott wrote:
I'm unsure now, but I think I tried making Basis a data type (not syn) and
ran into the problem I mentioned above. The Basis *synonyms* also have
HasTrie instances, which is crucially important. If we switch to (injective)
data types, then we
Oh! I'd completely forgotten about this idea. Looking at Data.LinearMap in
vector-space, I see a comment about exactly this ambiguity, as well as the
start of a new module that wraps a data type around the linear map
representation. I don't recall whether I got stuck or just distracted.
On
Hi Brent,
I'm sorry to hear that the non-injectivity issue bit you. It's bitten me
also at times, leading me to choose associated data types (injective)
instead of associated synonyms (potentially non-injective). And sometimes,
the data types route is problematic, as the new types aren't
On 14 April 2010 03:48, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
Can someone more well-versed in the intricacies of type checking with
associated types explain this? Or is this a bug in GHC?
Hi Brent
Maybe you can't compose linear maps of the same type, and thus can't
build a valid monoid
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Stephen Tetley wrote:
On 14 April 2010 03:48, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
Can someone more well-versed in the intricacies of type checking with
associated types explain this? Or is this a bug in GHC?
If you take the definition of
On 15/04/2010, at 00:30, Brent Yorgey wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Stephen Tetley wrote:
On 14 April 2010 03:48, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
Can someone more well-versed in the intricacies of type checking with
associated types explain this? Or is this a
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:48:20AM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Right, this seems weird to me. Why is there still a 'u' mentioned in
the constraints? Actually, I don't even see why there ought to be
both v and v1. The type of (*.*) mentions three type variables, u, v, and
w:
Hi all,
Consider the following declarations.
-- from vector-space package:
(*.*) :: (HasBasis u, HasTrie (Basis u),
HasBasis v, HasTrie (Basis v),
VectorSpace w,
Scalar v ~ Scalar w)
= (v :-* w) - (u :-* v) - u :-* w
-- my code:
data
11 matches
Mail list logo
