On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Brent Yorgey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:byorgey@seas.upenn.edu">byorgey@seas.upenn.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Conal,<br>
<br>
Thanks for looking into this! Making (:-*) into a proper type seems<br>
promising. I did try wrapping (:-*) in a newtype but that didn't<br>
help (although I didn't expect it to).<br></blockquote><div><br>What do you mean by a "proper type"? I didn't know what Roman meant either, though I guessed he meant a newtype or data type.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I see you just uploaded a new version of vector-space; what's new in<br>
0.6.2?<br></blockquote><div><br>The dependency on the Boolean package now specifies >= 0.0.1.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<font color="#888888">-Brent<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 10:28:45AM -0700, Conal Elliott wrote:<br>
> Oh! I'd completely forgotten about this idea. Looking at Data.LinearMap in<br>
> vector-space, I see a comment about exactly this ambiguity, as well as the<br>
> start of a new module that wraps a data type around the linear map<br>
> representation. I don't recall whether I got stuck or just distracted.<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 3:46 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy <<a href="mailto:rl@cse.unsw.edu.au">rl@cse.unsw.edu.au</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On 17/04/2010, at 11:00, Conal Elliott wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > I'm unsure now, but I think I tried making Basis a data type (not syn)<br>
> > and ran into the problem I mentioned above. The Basis *synonyms* also have<br>
> > HasTrie instances, which is crucially important. If we switch to<br>
> > (injective) data types, then we lose the HasTrie instances. I'd be okay<br>
> > with defining HasTrie instances (preferably via "deriving") for the<br>
> > associated Basis data types, but I couldn't figure out how to. Maybe it's<br>
> > not possible currently, or maybe I just didn't know how.<br>
> ><br>
> > Could you perhaps make (:-*) a proper type rather than a synonym? That<br>
> > would help with the ambiguity.<br>
> ><br>
> > Roman<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
<br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>