Newest at the top
| 2026-02-05 11:42:29 +0100 | <dutchie> | I guess NonEmpty might be better at the very least |
| 2026-02-05 11:42:28 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-61-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2026-02-05 11:42:26 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | if you want the edge-case restrictions, impose them from outside |
| 2026-02-05 11:42:19 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | data structures typically work better if they represent a "neat" space of the possibilities without edge-case restrictions |
| 2026-02-05 11:42:16 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-61-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-02-05 11:41:56 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and no Left the same |
| 2026-02-05 11:41:49 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | no Right just sounds like a stupid cloze to me, not an invalid one |
| 2026-02-05 11:41:46 +0100 | <dutchie> | morally yes, probably practically no |
| 2026-02-05 11:41:33 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | dutchie: do you really need the restrictoin that there's at least one Right and at least one Left? |
| 2026-02-05 11:36:58 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: Lost terminal) |
| 2026-02-05 11:32:27 +0100 | <dutchie> | so my example would be [Right "A", Left "ring", Right "is a structure with", Left "compatible addition and multiplication"] |
| 2026-02-05 11:31:28 +0100 | <dutchie> | hmm, how could I encode a cloze deletion thing (i.e. fill-in-the-blanks "a [ring] is structure with [compatible addition and multiplication]") as a Haskell data type. first thought would be [Either String String] where Left is deleted text and Right is plain but that doesn't encode "at least one left and one right in some order" |
| 2026-02-05 11:27:44 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-61-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2026-02-05 11:27:38 +0100 | bggd_ | (~bgg@2a01:e0a:fd5:f510:45eb:593:20bc:aaf7) |
| 2026-02-05 11:27:31 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-61-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-02-05 11:19:08 +0100 | acidjnk | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e700e57835d41376842fa308.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) acidjnk |
| 2026-02-05 11:17:01 +0100 | xff0x | (~xff0x@fsb6a9491c.tkyc517.ap.nuro.jp) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-02-05 11:17:01 +0100 | haritz | (~hrtz@user/haritz) haritz |
| 2026-02-05 11:17:01 +0100 | haritz | (~hrtz@140.228.70.141) (Changing host) |
| 2026-02-05 11:17:01 +0100 | haritz | (~hrtz@140.228.70.141) |
| 2026-02-05 11:15:05 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | fair. :P |
| 2026-02-05 11:14:12 +0100 | <int-e> | tomsmeding: Sorry but I don't mind telling you things that you already know. :-P |
| 2026-02-05 11:09:51 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | if you want a num instance for arrays, you can have the matlab experience |
| 2026-02-05 11:09:33 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I do not care one whit |
| 2026-02-05 11:09:30 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | oh you mean for (+) |
| 2026-02-05 11:09:08 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | int-e: you shouldn't tag me there, you should tag probie, I've thought about this plenty :p |
| 2026-02-05 11:08:56 +0100 | <int-e> | (Smiley because I'm not sure that I'd heed that advice myself. Convenience is worth a lot of compromises...) |
| 2026-02-05 11:07:59 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> merijin: I don't mean replace num, I mean, turn num into a superclass a la the FAM change |
| 2026-02-05 11:07:02 +0100 | <int-e> | tomsmeding: well you should only have square matrices of fixed size if you want a Num instance ;-) |
| 2026-02-05 11:06:33 +0100 | <merijn> | Most proposed abstractions that are "more mathematically correct" tend to have really shit ergonomics for actual programming |
| 2026-02-05 11:06:08 +0100 | <probie> | tomsmeding: Just only allow square matrices, and then have `fromInteger` set the diagonal |
| 2026-02-05 11:06:03 +0100 | <merijn> | It's not happening |
| 2026-02-05 11:05:45 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> i wonder if we'll ever split num into ring subclasses |
| 2026-02-05 11:05:08 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | probie: fair point, I guess |
| 2026-02-05 11:04:56 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | int-e: I don't mind having to define abs and signum for matrices, but fromInteger is a pain in the behind :) |
| 2026-02-05 11:04:34 +0100 | <int-e> | (it's a heap object; GC can move it) |
| 2026-02-05 11:04:33 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> just out of curiosity, if Haskell had a program paying UGs to do FOSS work, would you be donating? |
| 2026-02-05 11:04:19 +0100 | akegalj | (~akegalj@173-245.dsl.iskon.hr) akegalj |
| 2026-02-05 11:02:37 +0100 | <merijn> | Leary: The reason IORef doesn't support ordering is that it's equality is based on memory address, which you can't use for ordering, since it might change |
| 2026-02-05 11:02:36 +0100 | <probie> | It's not basic programming knowledge that `product (3,4) = 4` (alright, technically that's `Foldable` not `Traversable`, but close enough |
| 2026-02-05 11:02:33 +0100 | <int-e> | (I don't usually mind fromInteger) |
| 2026-02-05 11:01:58 +0100 | <int-e> | tomsmeding: all my rings are unital ;) |
| 2026-02-05 11:01:47 +0100 | <probie> | tomsmeding: Who needs a sane instance when you can have a useful instance. I don't really think that it's any worse than `instance Traversable ((,) a)`. |
| 2026-02-05 11:00:08 +0100 | mjrosenb | (~mjrosenb@pool-71-190-143-170.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-02-05 10:56:06 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I imagined yes |
| 2026-02-05 10:55:58 +0100 | <int-e> | tomsmeding: In that context I wouldn't care about abs and signum so I'd use abs = id and signum 0 = 0, signum _ = 1 |
| 2026-02-05 10:55:43 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | fromInteger also |
| 2026-02-05 10:55:22 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | yes, yet another reason for Num to be nonsense |
| 2026-02-05 10:55:11 +0100 | <int-e> | (if anybody ever makes a new Haskell derivative, `abs` and `signum` should be in their own class) |
| 2026-02-05 10:55:03 +0100 | tomsmeding | was wondering why Complex doesn't have that instance, but it's magnitude computation in abs and signum |