Wouldn't this be a good discussion for the Haskell Prime List? Reilly Hayes +1 415 388 3903 (office) +1 415 846 1827 (mobile) rfh@ridgecrestfinancial.com On Apr 2, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
I too was put off by the Num issues though--strange mixture of sophisticated category theory and lack of a sensible hierarchy of algebraic objects.
Perhaps we should replace CT with lattice theoretic thinking (e.g. functor = monotonic function) before cleaning up the type-related mess? See: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/269479.html
so count me in on an effort to make Haskell more mathematical. For me that probably starts with the semigroup/group/ring setup, and good arbitrary-precision as well as approximate linear algebra support.
I agree: semigoups like lattices are everywhere. Then there could be a uniform treatment of linear algebra, polynomial equations, operator algebra, etc. So, perhaps haste is not a good advice here?
-Andrzej
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe