Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also one writes, for example, zero x
instead of zero `asTypeOf` x.
> `asTypeOf` is effectively a builtin language construct that just
> happens to be implemented as a function in the s
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:
> 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
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
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
