Mark P Jones writes:
> | 2. Is there a way to modify the signatures to make it legal?
>
> Not that I can see!
>
> Personally, I think you've found a bug in the Haskell report! But, as
> it stands, others can reasonably say this is a bug in Hugs 98 ... I guess
> we should modify the typechecker to reject this kind of program, at least
> when Hugs is running in Haskell 98 mode. But it seems a shame to do all
> that work for a check that people might prefer to do without :-(
I think I prefer the Hugs 98 behaviour :-)
/M
