Show, Eq not necessary for Num [Was: Revamping the numeric classes]
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:55:18 +1100
On 09-Feb-2001, Brian Boutel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Patrik Jansson wrote:
> > The fact that equality can be trivially defined as bottom does not imply
> > that it should be a superclass of Num, it only explains that there is an
> > ugly way of working around the problem.
> There is nothing trivial or ugly about a definition that reflects
> reality and bottoms only where equality is undefined.
I disagree. Haskell is a statically typed language, and having errors
which could easily be detected at compile instead being deferred to
run time is ugly in a statically typed language.
Fergus Henderson <email@example.com> | "I have always known that the pursuit
| of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.