Antoine Latter wrote:
On 8/3/07, Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, unless of course you did:
instance (Monad m, Num n) => Num (m n)
or some such nonsense. :)
I decided to take this as a dare - at first I thought it would be easy
to declare (Monad m, Num n) => m n to be an instance of Num (just lift
or return the operators as necessary), but I ran into trouble once I
realized I needed two things I wasn't going to get:
An instance of Eq (m n), and an instance of Show (m n) for all monads
m. Eq would need a function of the form:
(==) :: Monad m => m a -> m a -> Bool
and Show would need a function of type m a -> String
What about Eq1 and Show1 classes? In the same vein as Typeable1:
> class Eq1 f where
> eq1 :: Eq a => f a -> f a -> Bool
> neq1 :: Eq a => f a -> f a -> Bool
> class Show1 f where
> show1 :: Show a => f a -> String
> showsPrec1 :: Show a => Int -> f a -> ShowS
Now you can declare the Num instance:
> instance (Monad m, Eq1 m, Show1 m, Num n) => Num (m n) where
> (+) = liftM2 (+)
> (-) = liftM2 (-)
> (*) = liftM2 (*)
> abs = liftM abs
> signum = liftM signum
> negate = ligtM negate
> fromInteger = return . fromInteger
And just to show that such instances can exist:
> instance Eq1 [] where
> eq1 = (==)
> neq1 = (/=)
> instance Show1 [] where
> show1 = show
> showsPrec1 = showsPrec
Note: All of this is untested code.
Twan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
