(Moving this to the cafe.) G'day all.
Quoting Cale Gibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > We already do rely on them in most cases. Of course, not every > property can be proved by the compiler, but many pieces of code are > going to assume quite a lot. Agreed. > I think that the assumption that (+) and (*) in Num define something > like a ring on the given type is a sensible one. I'm not so certain. Octonian multiplication, to pick one example, is not associative, but I'd like to be able to use (*) nonetheless. Cheers, Andrew Bromage _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
