On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 06:48:35PM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote: > note also that we are talking about different things here: I am talking > about FD consistency, you are talking about the FD consistency condition.
That would explain a few things. > as this example shows once again, there are instance declarations > for which the FD consistency condition, as currently interpreted by > Hugs, fails, even though no inconsistent constraints are implied. so I > fail to see the point of continuing to require the FD consistency > condition in unrevised form. Do you have a revised set of restrictions on the form of instances? _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list [email protected] http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
