# In hoc signo vinces (Was: Revamping the numeric classes)

**Jerzy Karczmarczuk
**
karczma@info.unicaen.fr

*Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:52:39 +0000*

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>* JK> Now, signum and abs seem to be quite distincts beasts. Signum seem
*>* JK> to require Ord (and a generic zero...).
*>*
*>* Signum doesn't require Ord.
*>* signum z = z / abs z
*>* for complex numbers.
*
Thank you, I know. And I ignore it. Calling "signum" the result of
a vector normalization (on the gauss plane in this case) is something
I don't really appreciate, and I wonder why this definition infiltrated
the prelude. Just because it conforms to the "normal" definition of
signum for reals?
Again, a violation of the orthogonality principle. Needing division
just to define signum. And of course a completely different approach
do define the signum of integers. Or of polynomials...
Jerzy Karczmarczuk