Re: Polymorphic recursive calls possible via type classes

> Joe's example work as is. As I think it should. I havn't tried > with ghc. It compiles perfectly with ghc. Like Lennart, I don't see why it shouldn't! Kevin

the silly example (warning: nitpicking about typing)

> I can't see why [Joe's "silly"] example should cause any problems. > What happens is > 1) The class defines a class G with method g > (the default method does not have to be consulted to > do this). > 2) There is an instance saying that if (G a) holds then >

Re: Prefix negation

>| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >| >| I'm puzzled by a detail in the Report, which seems to contradict itself. >| >| On page 13 it says: >| >| The special form -e denotes prefix negation, [...] and is simply >| syntax for negate (e), where negate is as defined in the standard >|