Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:03:39 GMT
Original-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| From: john peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I'll still stick with my opinion on this one, though. Here's more
| reasons:
| a) This represents a potentially large numb
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Sun, 10 Nov 91 07:55:42 GMT
Paul Hudak writes:
I don't understand your example.
That's because it's *wrong*! I was obviously thinking of Haskell 2,
where the relaxation of the C-T rule allows me to put instance
declarations somewhere besides the defining modules of th
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Sun, 10 Nov 91 02:23:26 GMT
a) If an instance declaration is given for a type T and class C, instance
declarations must also be given for T and all the superclasses of C.
b) If an instance declaration is given for a type T and class C, T is
automatically an i
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Sat, 9 Nov 91 15:09:09 GMT
| Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 18:20:38 EST
| From: john peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Subject: Superclass instances (Oops)
|
| I'll still stick with my opinion on this one, though. Here's more
| reasons:
|
| a) T
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Tue, 5 Nov 91 03:07:23 GMT
Original-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just sent an errata list to Will Partain, including the following:
>2) Nowhere does the Report say that if a type is an instance of a class
>then it must also be an instance of all that class's superclasses.
