On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 12:39:01PM +, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> A second alternative would be to simulate your GADT with a type class and
> your constructors with the functions of that type class:
>
> [...]
>
> As a remark, this is a church encoding of the GADT.
>
> [...]
>
> Now you can encode
Hello Tomasz,
Unfortunatelly I have only seen your message after Simon answered to it.
I am sorry for the late answer!
>| If there is another way to do this right now (conveniently, Oleg! ;-),
>I
>| would be more than happy to hear about it.
>|
>| If this worked, it would be a cool trick and a n
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 09:48:04AM -, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Intriguing! I'm afraid it'll be some time before your code works,
> though.
No problem, I can wait.
> First I have to get GADTs and type classes to play together nicely,
> which I am hoping to do during Jan/Feb. Then I'll hav
Tomasz
Intriguing! I'm afraid it'll be some time before your code works,
though.
First I have to get GADTs and type classes to play together nicely,
which I am hoping to do during Jan/Feb. Then I'll have to think about
the interaction between GADTs and fundeps.
As of today, if it works at all
