And I agree that sometimes it can be suitable.
But simply "defining an instance of Num" without a single word on the
problem one
is trying to solve is not just pointless. It's something that should
not be done.
On 5 Oct 2009, at 21:06, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
OK, "just pairs" have no arithmetic, but one way of defining
arithmetic is to treat the pairs as complex numbers. Or as mantissa
and exponent. Or as something else. So there's nothing wrong, IMO,
to make pairs an instance of Num if you so desire. (Though I'd
probably introduce a new type.)
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Miguel Mitrofanov <miguelim...@yandex.ru
> wrote:
"Just pairs" have no natural arithmetic upon them.
Exactly my point.
BTW. the missing term of M.M. is DUAL NUMBERS.
Remembered this already. Thanks anyway.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
