Yitz: very helpful. Can you turn your proposal into a Wiki page? It's
different to Johan's.
Could you add examples? I don't fully understand your design.
| [This has the additional advantage of giving SPJ
| motivation to remain engaged, because he seems
| to prefer B. :)]
True: but that's b
I thought that might be the case. Thanks for that!
Cheers,
Reiner
On 17/01/2012, at 1:15 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | /tmp/Test.hs:4:1:
> | The multi-parameter class `C' cannot have generic methods
> | In the class declaration for `C'
>
> Aha. Trawling the commit logs, this tes
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Johan, if you are serious, do add a new wiki page to
> describe the design.
> You say it's simple, but I don't think it really is.
I'll support Johan by presenting the proposal for A below.
I believe that it really is very simple, both in concept and
implementation, but
| /tmp/Test.hs:4:1:
| The multi-parameter class `C' cannot have generic methods
| In the class declaration for `C'
Aha. Trawling the commit logs, this test is simply a vestige of the PREVIOUS
generic-class story, now long gone. So we can lift the restriction easily.
I'll commit a
Hello Reiner,
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 06:32, Reiner Pope wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just tried, and it appears that the new DefaultSignatures extension
> doesn't work with multi parameter type classes.
>
> Is there a reason for this restriction, or is it merely an accident?
>
I don't think the orig
Johan, if you are serious, do add a new wiki page to describe the design.
You say it's simple, but I don't think it really is. The whole qualified name
story is *already* pretty complicated: see
http://ogi.altocumulus.org/~hallgren/hsmod/Description.pdf
Particular issues I can think of immedia
| > But note what has happened: we have simply re-invented SORF. So the
| > conclusion is this:
| >
| > the only sensible way to implement FDR is using SORF.
|
| An obvious question at this point: can records have unboxed fields?
| I'm worried a bit about the kinds that can appear in a has cons
