Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:37:28 +1300, Brian Boutel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Can you demonstrate a revised hierarchy without Eq? What would
> happen to Ord and the numeric classes with default class method
> definitions that use (==) either explicitly or in pattern matching
> against numeric literals?
OK, then you can't write these default method definitions.
I'm against removing Eq from the numeric hierarchy, against making Num
instances for functions, but I would probably remove Show. I haven't
seen a sensible proposal of a replacement of the whole hierarchy.
> In an instance declaration, if a method requires operations of
> another class which is not a superclass of the class being instanced,
> it is sufficient to place the requirement in the context,
Better: it is sufficient if the right instance is defined somewhere.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/
^^ SYGNATURA ZASTÊPCZA
QRCZAK
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
