Re: Who needs Ord for Sets and Maps anyway?

On 19/01/06, ajb@spamcop.net wrote:

G'day all.

Quoting Jean-Philippe Bernardy :

...

It is also much more inline with the haskell style. See for example, Num class: (+) :: a -> a -> a

A lot of people don't like this type, especially for multiplication. It makes implementing types based on vector spaces much more complicated, for example.

Well, obviously it would be nice to be able to do that, but has anyone figured out *how* yet? This sounds kinda like how we haven't got a collections framework yet because no one has figured out how to type it nicely... wait, isn't that what we were talking about to start with?