On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:04:53AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > Nothing difficult in principle, but the constraint solver is one of > the more delicate parts of GHC because GHC's constraint language has > become so complex.
Well, as my day job is working for a constraints lab, I feel it's my bounded duty to say, "all the better": more cross-disciplinary synergy. ;-) For my part I must admit the current restrictions aren't _that_ irksome: they're just the sort of thing I run into every so often, have to remind myself they're the way they are, and end up writing a few more instance declarations by hand than I initially imagined I 'ought' to have to. On the point of complexity: it's not immediately obvious to me that (setting aside the Hugs-style extension to H98 in the form of the instance decls.) it would cause any blowup here in principle. Granted there's a combinatorial issue, but the breadth and depth of alternatives are necessarily finite, so it seems finitely bound overall, and since HM typing is D-Exp anyway, I'd be surprised if it made it worse than that in toto. Hideousness of implementation's another matter, and certainly I don't want to be biting the hand that feeds... Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users