I have studied the materials but not tried it out. the effort is directed
towards allowing to build algebraic structures with haskell in a way closer
to regular algebra (i was reading this summer the classic macLean &
Birkhoff, algebra, (3rd edition) - highly recommended!). the proposal is
very in
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
> And there arises a question.
> To make the implementation accessible, the paper file has to be
> included there as the necessary part of documentation. Maybe, not
> literally the paper, but something that 90% coincides with it.
> On the other hand
Sun, 7 May 2000 16:13:46 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Also what do you do with
> class Foo a where weightOfType :: Int
> ?
In this case one solution is to have a sample argument, because Haskell
does not provide more convenient way of parame
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also one writes, for example, zero x
instead of zero `asTypeOf` x.
> `asTypeOf` is effectively a builtin language construct that just
> happens to be implemented as a function in the s
Fergus Henderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip]
: > * `zero x' fits the aim of implicit dynamic domains.
:
: This one is much more interesting.
I am not sure if I understand this but I also used
zero :: a -> a
to create polynopmials as opposed to a function
zero :: a
The application
On 07-May-2000, S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> > Sample arguments are bad, because:
> > [5 points follow]
>
> But they are only for snobs.
That doesn't matter; we don't want to add a bad feature,
regardless of who is likely
Sun, 7 May 2000 00:56:57 +1000, Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Incidentally, this is an area where Mercury is more expressive than
> Haskell. In Mercury, dummy arguments are still needed sometimes.
> But using Mercury's mode system, you can express in the function's
> declaration
On 06-May-2000, S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson wrote:
>
> > Consider the following scenario. Alfred defines a type `T'
> > and writes such a vacuous instance declaration for `Set T'.
> > This is part of a large library package that Alfred has written.
> > Meanwhile
On 06-May-2000, S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 6 May 2000
>
> > Personally I think it is bad that Haskell allows this.
> > The Haskell report says the following:
>
> | If no binding is given for some class method then the correspondi
Sat, 6 May 2000 15:30:39 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> > | if such a default does not exist then a compile-time error results.
> >
> > The existence of this loop-hole compromises Haskell's static type
> > safety.
I agree that disallowing this would be a good thing.
T
NO NO.
Almost like Field but maybe, non-commutative.
On Wed, 3 May 2000, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
>
> > But this is not good enough to attract general attention
> > and to make it easy to discuss about. The onus is still
> > on you, to be frank.
>
> It is large enough. If I expand it with more comments, people will
> be frightened by
Wed, 3 May 2000 18:20:28 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> PartialOrd was asked by Tom Pledger.
> I responded: "if other people would not object".
> Trying to be a kind guy. Let the others decide whether PartialOrd
> is necessary.
It's not just a single place that I d
13 matches
Mail list logo
