On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 20:06 +0100, Daniel Fischer wrote: > Am Freitag, 13. Februar 2009 19:49 schrieb Jonathan Cast: > > 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 > > To do justice to the above proposal, in that situation more than one choice > would typecheck (were the other imports absent or qualified), so that should > also be rejected according to it.
Yeah, my objection is precisely that this trivial example is rejected. If this use of map is rejected, then I claim *every* use of map should be rejected. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe