On 09-Feb-2001, Brian Boutel <brian@boutel.co.nz> wrote:
Patrik Jansson wrote:
The fact that equality can be trivially defined as bottom does not imply that it should be a superclass of Num, it only explains that there is an ugly way of working around the problem.
...
There is nothing trivial or ugly about a definition that reflects reality and bottoms only where equality is undefined.
I disagree. Haskell is a statically typed language, and having errors which could easily be detected at compile instead being deferred to run time is ugly in a statically typed language. -- Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit | of excellence is a lethal habit" WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.