On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Yes, I agree with this, and I'd already snuck it into the
> rewrite of the Enum section that I had to do anyhow.
>
> Would you like to read the section (6.3.4) and see if
> you think it is better specified now?
>
Yes, it's cool! No objections.
I also noticed that you added a comment in appendix A about the status of
the default-method definitions. I suspect it was added because of my
argument for the Integer instance of the Enum class. Anyway I think the
comment is very sensible.
Thanks for the heroic work you're putting in to this. Keep it up.
Cheers,
/Josef
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
