When Mark Shields and I tackled this problem we came up with
Object-Oriented Style Overloading for Haskell
http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Papers/oo-haskell/index.htm
It describes an (unimplemented) extension to Haskell, rather than
modelling it in Haskell itself, but you m
Peter Gammie writes:
> Haskell Report, Sec 3.15.3
Great, that's exactly what I need.
Thanks a lot to all who replied!
Peter
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On 25/09/2003, at 7:22 AM, Brandon Michael Moore wrote:
I'm trying to build a nicer interface over the one generated by
jvm-bridge. I'm using fancy type classes to remove the need to mangle
method names. I would like methods to be automatcially inherited,
following an inheritance hierarcy defined
The following code illustrates a _generic_ interface to low-level
database code. The left-fold iterator doQuery is completely generic
over any possible iterator -- no matter how many columns the query
returns, what are the types of these columns and what is the type of
the seed (accumulator). The
out of curiosity, is haskell already been used as a "specification" language ?
i was thinking in a business term, rather than mathematical one. (i.e. one than "
normal mortal can read, even with a bit of training ;-)
I.e. one would specifiy a model, an application ( possibly run it on samples),
Note I've replied to haskell-cafe. This post is a bit chatty and low on
solid answers.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Sean L. Palmer wrote:
> > >>A... should be split into "A.." and "."
> > >I found a compromise: let's make it a lexing error! :-)
> > At least that agrees with what some Haskell compilers im
Brandon Michael Moore wrote:
> So I defined a class to model the inheritance relationships
> class SubType super sub | sub -> super where
> upCast :: sub -> super
> Now I can define a default instance of HasFooMethod:
> instance (HasFooMethod super args result,
> SubClass super sub)
Brandon Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or was that supposed to be composition of a constructor with a function, A
> . f? Function composition, and higher order functions in general are
> likely to confuse an imperative programmer, but I think there isn't much
> syntax can do there.
I
