On 09/05/12 03:49, MigMit wrote:
> On 8 May 2012, at 21:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM, MigMit wrote:
>>> Hi café, a quick question.
>>>
>>> Is there a somewhat standard class like this:
>>>
>>> class Something c where
>>>unit :: c () ()
>>>pair :: c x
That's an interesting idea, thanks.
Отправлено с iPad
08.05.2012, в 23:31, Daniel Peebles написал(а):
> To expand on that, this class basically allows you to prove your relation c
> holds pointwise across arbitrary binary trees, represented by nested tuples
> and terminated by ()s. If individ
To expand on that, this class basically allows you to prove your
relation cholds pointwise across arbitrary binary trees, represented
by nested tuples
and terminated by ()s. If individual instances of the class had additional
ways of constructing values (i.e., proving the relation for the two type
FullBinaryTreeRelation? :P
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, MigMit wrote:
> Hi café, a quick question.
>
> Is there a somewhat standard class like this:
>
> class Something c where
>unit :: c () ()
>pair :: c x y -> c u v -> c (x, u) (y, v)
>
> ?
>
> I'm using it heavily in my current pro
On 8 May 2012, at 21:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM, MigMit wrote:
>> Hi café, a quick question.
>>
>> Is there a somewhat standard class like this:
>>
>> class Something c where
>>unit :: c () ()
>>pair :: c x y -> c u v -> c (x, u) (y, v)
>>
>> ?
>>
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM, MigMit wrote:
> Hi café, a quick question.
>
> Is there a somewhat standard class like this:
>
> class Something c where
> unit :: c () ()
> pair :: c x y -> c u v -> c (x, u) (y, v)
>
> ?
>
> I'm using it heavily in my current project, but I don't want to rep
Hi café, a quick question.
Is there a somewhat standard class like this:
class Something c where
unit :: c () ()
pair :: c x y -> c u v -> c (x, u) (y, v)
?
I'm using it heavily in my current project, but I don't want to repeat somebody
else's work, and it seems general enough to be de
