14 Apr
2010
14 Apr
'10
11:01 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:48:20AM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Right, this seems weird to me. Why is there still a 'u' mentioned in the constraints? Actually, I don't even see why there ought to be both v and v1. The type of (*.*) mentions three type variables, u, v, and w:
(*.*) :: (HasBasis u, HasTrie (Basis u), HasBasis v, HasTrie (Basis v), VectorSpace w, Scalar v ~ Scalar w) => (v :-* w) -> (u :-* v) -> u :-* w
Note that (:-*) is a type synonym:
type :-* u v = MSum (Basis u :->: v)
Aha! That's what I was missing. Thanks for the insight, Roman. I guess it's time to go bug Conal... =) -Brent