Does it look wrong when we write `class Eq extends Exp`? I understand that we come to it because we can describe the equality in a binary tree. However, I don't think all the binary trees are about the same thing, i.e. it doesn't make sense to put a binary tree about A in a binary tree about B. If we agree with that, then we can avoid the complication of `Exp[...]` (but I guess that complication won't disappear, it will go somewhere else 🙂).
Hi anyone, I'd like to ask whether type classes would help to solve the problem of adding new terms, when using ADT-encoding? Thanks!
Does it look wrong when we write `class Eq extends Exp`? I understand that we come to it because we can describe the equality in a binary tree. However, I don't think all the binary trees are about the same thing, i.e. it doesn't make sense to put a binary tree about A in a binary tree about B. If we agree with that, then we can avoid the complication of `Exp[...]` (but I guess that complication won't disappear, it will go somewhere else 🙂).
Very very basic Expression Problem talk