On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 12:39:35PM +1100, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote: > droundy: > > I was just thinking today. Is there any reason we couldn't have infix > > multiparameter typeclasses? For typeclasses standing as witnesses of > > relationships it'd be much clearer, for example to have something like > > (a :<: b) rather than the always-vague (LT a b) which either reads the > > same as the infix version or backwards. > > [...] > > I think they are valid now!
Silly me! I didn't even think to try! Nice. And thanks! -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
