I think Simon or Alastair promised this in 2.0 (though it doesn't appear
on the list for 2.0...)
-Alex-
On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 08-Jul-1998, Johannes Waldmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > how would you resolve ambiguities?
> > probably by requiring an explicit type signature
> > at the point of usage.
> >
> > fine, but then i'd like to have this in other cases as well,
> > finally arriving at Ada-style overloading
> > (a name may have several meanings
> > as long as they can be distinguished by their type)
> >
> > then i could write size :: [a] -> Int; size :: Tree a -> Int,
> > and the two things are completely unrelated.
>
> FYI, the logic/functional language Mercury supports exactly that
> kind of overloading. I found the Haskell requirement that
> every data constructor have a different name quite annoying:
> I wound up including the type name in the data constructor names
> to ensure uniqueness. This is a pain, because you then end up
> effectively type-qualifying *every* occurrence of the data constructors,
> rather than only type-qualifying the ones that would otherwise be ambiguous.
>
> --
> Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
> WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
> PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
>
___________________________________________________________________
S. Alexander Jacobson i2x Media
1-212-697-0184 voice 1-212-697-1427 fax
