You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would be nice to removeEq and Show instances for SBV.
Show instance seems to be relatively easy to remove; compilation issues can probably be worked around by using "<symbolic>" in the non-concrete case, which is what happens anyhow.
Eq instance is tricky. We want Bits (SBV a). But in Haskell, Bits class has Eq as its super-class, which necessitates the Eq (SBV a). This is unfortunate. What's not clear to me is why the Bits class require Eq? This seems to be an oversight, and perhaps might be good to take it with the proposals process to see if it can be removed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Wohoo! Actually the Show instance is kind of "required" since otherwise we can't just apply symbolic value producing functions to constants and have their values shown. Silly me.. Reverted the changes.
It would be nice to remove
Eq
andShow
instances forSBV
.Show
instance seems to be relatively easy to remove; compilation issues can probably be worked around by using"<symbolic>"
in the non-concrete case, which is what happens anyhow.Eq
instance is tricky. We wantBits (SBV a)
. But in Haskell,Bits
class hasEq
as its super-class, which necessitates theEq (SBV a)
. This is unfortunate. What's not clear to me is why theBits
class requireEq
? This seems to be an oversight, and perhaps might be good to take it with the proposals process to see if it can be removed.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: