Sun, 7 May 2000 00:56:57 +1000, Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Incidentally, this is an area where Mercury is more expressive than
> Haskell. In Mercury, dummy arguments are still needed sometimes.
> But using Mercury's mode system, you can express in the function's
> declaration
On 06-May-2000, S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To my
>
> >> Alfred defined *his* user type T and *his* Set instance for it.
> >> And Charles dislikes this instance.
> >> Why basAlgPropos is guilty?
>
> Marcin Qrczak Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> > Because it unnecessa
On 06-May-2000, S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson wrote:
>
> > Consider the following scenario. Alfred defines a type `T'
> > and writes such a vacuous instance declaration for `Set T'.
> > This is part of a large library package that Alfred has written.
> > Meanwhile
On 06-May-2000, S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 6 May 2000
>
> > Personally I think it is bad that Haskell allows this.
> > The Haskell report says the following:
>
> | If no binding is given for some class method then the correspondi
To my
>> Alfred defined *his* user type T and *his* Set instance for it.
>> And Charles dislikes this instance.
>> Why basAlgPropos is guilty?
Marcin Qrczak Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> Because it unnecessarily forced him to define a Set instance, and to
> do it early.
Alfred is no
Sat, 6 May 2000 15:30:39 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> > | if such a default does not exist then a compile-time error results.
> >
> > The existence of this loop-hole compromises Haskell's static type
> > safety.
I agree that disallowing this would be a good thing.
T
Marcin Kowalczyk wrote:
> > I am quite happy with not getting a compile-time error for
> > non-implemented class methods, as long as I get a compile-time error
> > when I try to use a non-implemented class method.
>
> This is impossible.
Thank you.
In that case I agree with Fergus.
Bart Demoe
To my
>> [..]
>> How the hacker uses them? One simply takes (+) from Additive,
>> (*) from Multiplicative, dimRem from EuclideanRing
>> - instead of Num, Integral of old Haskell-98.
>> When one wants the instance for the type T with, say, (*),
>> one needs to declare for it
>> insta
Sat, 6 May 2000 13:07:03 +0200 (MET DST), Bart Demoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pisze:
> I am quite happy with not getting a compile-time error for
> non-implemented class methods, as long as I get a compile-time error
> when I try to use a non-implemented class method.
This is impossible.
> I mean
Fergus wrote:
> | If no binding is given for some class method then the corresponding
> | default class method in the class declaration is used (if present);
> | if such a default does not exist then the class method of this
> | instance is bound to undefined and no compile-time error results
10 matches
Mail list logo
