That's good enough until GHC 6.6.
Thank you very much!
/ Emil
Tomasz Zielonka skrev:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Emil Axelsson wrote:
Is this just a limitation of the current GATDs, or is it unreasonable of me
to expect this to work?
AFAIK it is a current limitation of GAD
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:42:15AM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Emil Axelsson wrote:
> > Is this just a limitation of the current GATDs, or is it unreasonable of me
> > to expect this to work?
>
> AFAIK it is a current limitation of GADTs, which will b
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Emil Axelsson wrote:
> Is this just a limitation of the current GATDs, or is it unreasonable of me
> to expect this to work?
AFAIK it is a current limitation of GADTs, which will be removed in GHC
6.6.
> Is there any workaround, such as coercing the type
I found an acceptable, but not too nice workaround:
* Add another class without methods:
class HasX a => HasX' a
* Make all types that may be unconstrained an instance of this class:
instance HasX' Number
* Make pairs an instance of HasX (this feels wrong):
instance HasX (a1,a2)
