Samuel Bronson wrote:
> Aren't the warnings just about as usefull as failures? Anyway, you
> could always use the -Werrror flag for ghc...
>
> In any case, I would not like to have to implement an entire typeclass
> at once... it would interfere with incremental development.
Hmm. I guess I'm doing a terrible job of asking my question. I
don't want to implement the entire typeclass either. Just the part that
my program actually uses. Why can't the fact that my program uses an
unimplemented instance of a class be statically determined? Is there a
theoretical reason it can't be done? Is it more convienient for
compiler/specification writers this way? Is it just because that's the
way its always been done?
Curious,
Greg Buchholz
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
