[Haskell-cafe] Re: Implementing fixed-sized vectors (using datatype algebra?)

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > You seem to write 12 as 1 :+ 2 instead of () :+ 1 :+ 2.  But I think, the
>> > latter representation should probably be prefered.  With it, :+ always
>> > has a number as its left argument and a digit as its right.  Without the
>> > () :+ we get ugly exceptional cases.
>> > You can see this, for example, in the instance
>> > declarations for Compare.  With the second representation, we could
>> > reduce the number of instances dramatically.  We would define a
>> > comparison of digits (verbose) and than a comparison of numbers based on
>> > the digit comparison (not verbose).
>> 
>> Even if () would be preferred from the programmers point of view (I'm
>> not sure how much we could reduce the number of instances though), it
>> makes the representation less attractive on the user-side. Anyone
>> using the library would find it annoying and would wonder why is it
>> neccessary.

> I wouldn’t wonder.  Leaving out the () :* part just works because our 
> type-level “values” are not typed, i.e., there aren’t different kinds Digit 
> and Number but only kind *.  If :+ would be a data constructor (on the value 
> level), it would take a number and a digit argument which would forbid using 
> a digit as its left argument.  So I consider using a digit on the left 
> as “unclean”.  It’s similar to using a number as the second part of a cons 
> cell in LISP.

How 'bout treating :+ as similar to `append' rather than similar to `cons'?
Basically treat :+ as taking 2 numbers (rather than a number and
a digit).


        Stefan