On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
After thinking about it for a while, I'm positive it would be a LOT of work to get that to work in general, if it is even possible. Even getting it to work in only specific, limited cases (such as within a module) would probably not be easy, since it is such an indirect kind of thing. It probably wouldn't be all that usefull anyway, either. In general, though, I think they don't implement stuff like this unless someone specifically wants to *use* it. -- Sam _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
