[Haskell-cafe] Re: Function Precedence
Chris Smith
cdsmith at twu.net
Thu Apr 3 10:07:53 EDT 2008
Hans Aberg 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 into thing
4. ... and with Eq and Show.
If one wanted to be perfectly formally correct, then each of 2-4 could be
split out of Num. For example, 2 doesn't make sense for polynomials or n
by n square matrices. 4 doesn't make sense for functions. 3 doesn't
make sense for square matrices of dimension greater than 1. And, this
quirk about 2(x+y) can be seen as an argument for not wanting it in the
case of functions, either. I'm not sure I find the argument terribly
compelling, but it is there anyway.
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 semigroup in order to understand the type signatures inferred
from code that does basic math in Haskell. At least in the U.S., very
few computer science students take an algebra course before getting
undergraduate degrees.
> In mathematical terms, the set of functions is a (math) module
> ("generalized vectorspace"), not a ring.
Well, I agree that functions are modules; but it's hard to agree that
they are not rings. After all, it's not too difficult to verify the ring
axioms.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list