[Apologies if you receive this more than once]
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPILER CONSTRUCTION
CC 2000
Berlin, Germany
27-31 March 2000
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: htt
>
> | Also, you say a dependency with zero variables on the right side is
> | syntactically correct, but later you say it will be reported as an
> | error because it says nothing. Why bother?
>
> Point taken. In fact that same database text I mentioned above
> prohibits functional dependencies
| Neat. And it solves a problem I was kludging around with explicit,
| existentially quantified dictionaries.
Great! Can I look forward to hearing more about that some time?
| On a superficial note, how about
| class C a b c | (a,b) => c where ...
| for
| class C a b c | a b -> c w
> > > (3) OK with GHC, error with Hugs:
> > >
> > > f = \x -> m x
> > > x = f()
> > ...
> > > - Is GHC's treatment of (3) a bug?
> >
> > At first glance it looks a bit that way to me, but
> > I will leave it for the more knowledgable Haskell experts
> > to give you a definitive answer on that one
Mark P Jones wrote:
> A couple of months ago, I developed and implemented an extension to
> Hugs that has the potential to make multiple parameter type classes
> more useful. The key idea is to allow class declarations to be
> annoted with `functional dependencies'---an idea that has previously
>
> what ghc compiles. I'd like to also use Hugs, for a more interactive
development
> environment, but it shows little sign of ever being sufficiently
compatible (it
> is becoming increasing compatible in core aspects, but I want to use most
of the
> features of ghc, and the benefit of having an in
