On 09-Feb-2001, Brian Boutel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Patrik Jansson wrote: > > > > The fact that equality can be trivially defined as bottom does not imply > > that it should be a superclass of Num, it only explains that there is an > > ugly way of working around the problem. ... > > There is nothing trivial or ugly about a definition that reflects > reality and bottoms only where equality is undefined. I disagree. Haskell is a statically typed language, and having errors which could easily be detected at compile instead being deferred to run time is ugly in a statically typed language. -- Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit | of excellence is a lethal habit" WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
- Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Revamping t... Patrik Jansson
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Jerzy Karczmarczuk
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Ch. A. Herrmann
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was... Jerzy Karczmarczuk
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Brian Boutel
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Ketil Malde
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Brian Boutel
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Fergus Henderson
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Brian Boutel
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num Dylan Thurston
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Brian Boutel
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Fergus Henderson
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was... William Lee Irwin III
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Re... Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was... William Lee Irwin III
- Re: Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was... Brian Boutel