At 2003-08-04 22:33, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: >This illustrates what you pointed out earlier, that the >program's semantics can be changed by adding explicit type signatures >which include implicitly-parameterized parameters.
But wasn't avoiding this a design goal of your proposal? >> If it is valid, then this must be a valid reduction: >> >> ((\a -> ((a,[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> @x) [EMAIL PROTECTED] = 2})) ([EMAIL PROTECTED] >> -> @x),[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> @x) [EMAIL PROTECTED] = 1} >> (([EMAIL PROTECTED] -> @x,[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> @x) [EMAIL PROTECTED] = 2},[EMAIL >> PROTECTED] -> @x) [EMAIL PROTECTED] = 1} > >Not unless you give an explicit type signature, no. So effectively your proposal is the same as the existing implicit parameter mechanism, except that the compiler is a bit stricter in certain cases where the types are ambiguous? -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
