John Meacham wrote:
Yes, however my worry is that we are heading towards the proliferation of not very well thought out overlaping extensions (in the sense that how the extensions fit with other proposed and existing extensions does not seem well thought out). If the functionality duplicates something already achievable using functional dependancies, then what is the point of yet another extension to the language. I would rather have a small set of powerful tools, than an expansive set of single purpose gadgets.
The main advantage of this translation over the one in the paper is that it is not intertwined with the dictionary generation and typeclass desugaring code, which is pretty hairy to begin with. Rather it is an orthogonal transformation so hopefully will be easier to implement without touching too much of ghcs internals.
John
In my opinion a lot of these things could be implemented as syntactic sugar ontop of fundeps (making it easier to read). Template-Haskell could be used to generate the required classes from a simplified syntax without altering the compiler at all.
Keean.
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
