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?
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