Hello Chris,
Thursday, April 3, 2008, 6:07:53 PM, you wrote:
On the other hand, I have enough time already trying to explain Num,
Fractional, Floating, RealFrac, ... to new haskell programmes. I'm not
sure it's an advantage if someone must learn the meaning of an additive
commutative
On 3 Apr 2008, at 16:07, Chris Smith wrote:
This problem is not caused by defining f+g, but by defining
numerals as
constants.
Yup. So the current (Num thing) is basically:
1. The type thing is a ring
2. ... with signs and absolute values
3. ... along with a natural homomorphism from Z
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fractional, Floating, etc. are also horrible. Why the square root needs to
be floating? It can belong to the algebraic number domain.
At least in NumericPrelude we have separated these issues.
___
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you'd have to do is to give the inner most function the highest
precdence
What's the innermost function in f g x here?
test :: (a - b - c) - a - b - c
test f g x = f g x
--
Dan
2008/4/2, Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you'd have to do is to give the inner most function the highest
precdence
What's the innermost function in f g x here?
test :: (a - b - c) - a - b - c
test f g x = f g x
Are you asking why one doesn't change the rules for all functions? Or
are you asking why Haskell doesn't include a system of user-defined
precedence and associativity for function application so that one could
declare that g binds more tightly than f? I see good reasons for both
questions, but
On Apr 1, 2008, at 17:07 , PR Stanley wrote:
I'm beginning to wonder if I fully understand the right
associativity rule for the - operator.
Read a parenthesized unit as an argument:
(a - (b - (c - d))) (((f 1) 2) 3)
(((a - b) - c) - d) (f (1 (2 3)))
--
brandon s. allbery
