removing constraints

[Brandon Allbery]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <roma at ro-che.info> wrote:

> On 09/01/15 17:29, David Feuer wrote:
> >> The other cases are more arguable.  For example the change to Data.Ratio
> >> declares that the pair is kept in reduced form, but one could argue that
> >> requiring that is no bad thing.
> >
> > Disagreed. However, some have argued convincingly that the Ratio type as
> > it stands makes little sense anyway.
>
> [citation needed]


I believe this is referencing a past discussion (possibly on IRC) where it
was pointed out that Ratio is a type constructor, but the only instance
that makes any sense is Ratio Integer because any bounded integral type
will eventually (and usually rather quickly) exceed the bounds and fail
rather spectacularly given the lack of exceptions on bounded-integral
wraparound?

-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b at gmail.com                                  ballbery at sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20150109/3171ef47/attachment.html>