On 2005-11-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (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.
(*) is already defined as being left-associative in H98. I'm actually working with non-associative structures at the moment where the operation is usually considerd "multiplication", but I still wouldn't want to use (*) for it. Too much hassle for normal uses. -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
