On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 11:45 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote: > On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cast wrote: > > I believe the last time it was brought up, the proposal was that type > > inference should fail on certain typeable terms. That doesn't count. > > > I'm referring to a rather conservative proposal wherein if there is > one and exactly one definition that allows an expression to type, then > name overloading in the same scope is permitted. > > Aside from exponential performance in pathological (but unlikely) > cases, what issue do you have with such a proposal?
It breaks type inference. I explained this at the time. I can explain it again: import Data.List import Data.Set import Data.Map warmFuzzyThingFirstOperation = map This gives an error currently. Quite properly. But if *any* use of `map' type-checks, with those imports, why on earth should this one fail? You don't want to remove a wart from the language, you want to introduce one! jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe