Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If so, then I offer a counter example:
> >> toRational pi
> >
> > If these two points are valid, then I think the slight loss
> > of backward compatibility is acceptable?
>
> I spotted the problem because it
> looks (to me) like the current Haskell 98 rule is designed
> specifically to handle cases like this.
I agree that having to write
toRational (pi::Double)
is somewhat ugly.
> Would you mind updating the wiki page? I don't think it's too clear
> on the need for constraint simplification before applying your
> defaulting rules either.
I have added your counter example to the wiki. But I'm not sure how to
make the need for constraint simplification clearer. 3 out of the 7
sentences in the proposal describe it, and 3 out of the 5 examples
mention its role. What do you think is missing?
Regards,
Malcolm
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
