Or, if people have easy-enough extensible records that /will/ work
with funky types, I'd be happy to use those!
-Ron
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Ron Alford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Latter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It isn't immediately obvi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Latter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It isn't immediately obvious to me that the "Typeable" family of
> classes deal at all with higher-kinded type constructors, but I didn't
> look that hard.
>
Yes, that's what I'm worried about. For people's fun and amu
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Ron Alford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, but to make it part of a record, it needs to implement Data:
> data Expr f = In (f (Expr f)) deriving Data
>
> but this gives
>No instances for (Data (f (Expr f)), Typeable (Expr f))
> arising from the 'deriving' c
Well, my extension of Wouter's datatypes proved to be unweildy
So, I'm trying to use
http://fmapfixreturn.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/simple-extensible-records-now-quick-generic-tricks-pt-1/
for extensible records.
I ran across my first problem rather quickly!
data Expr f = In (f (Expr f))
Ok, b
