2 Nov
2005
2 Nov
'05
5:17 a.m.
(Moving this to the cafe.) G'day all. Quoting Cale Gibbard <cgibbard@gmail.com>:
We already do rely on them in most cases. Of course, not every property can be proved by the compiler, but many pieces of code are going to assume quite a lot.
Agreed.
I think that the assumption that (+) and (*) in Num define something like a ring on the given type is a sensible one.
I'm not so certain. Octonian multiplication, to pick one example, is not associative, but I'd like to be able to use (*) nonetheless. Cheers, Andrew Bromage