"John A. De Goes" <j...@n-brain.net> writes: > 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.
Perhaps this was discussed in the context of records and field accessors? -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
