Am Freitag, den 30.09.2011, 19:28 +0200 schrieb George Giorgidze: > Basically the idea is to treat list literals like: > > [1,2,3] > > as > > fromList [1,2,3] > > where > > class IsList l where > type Item l > fromList :: [Item l] -> l
Could we *please* not have classes whose names start with “Is”? We don’t have classes IsNum, IsEq, or IsOrd, so why should we have IsList and IsString? I know that the identifier String is already taken, but please don’t tie an identifier like IsString or IsList to a language feature, so that it’ll be difficult to change it later. Let’s search for a better solution. > In the following I give useful instances of the IsList class. > > […] > > instance (Ord a) => IsList (Set a) where > type Item (Set a) = a > fromList = Set.fromList As a set is definitely not a list, the class should better be named differently anyway, shouldn’t it? Don’t know if these issues have already been pointed out, since I didn’t read through the complete thread. Sorry, if they have already. Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users