Hello Greg,
Friday, May 13, 2005, 12:47:54 AM, you wrote:
GB> Samuel Bronson wrote:
>> After thinking about it for a while, I'm positive it would be a LOT of
>> work to get that to work in general, if it is even possible. Even
>> getting it to work in only specific, limited cases (such as within
Greg Buchholz wrote:
Samuel Bronson wrote:
The former may not be hard, but the latter would require functions
with typeclass constraints on their types to be annotated in the
interface file with what typeclass methods they called. Does that
sound hard yet?
Compared to writing the rest of the c
On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Samuel Bronson wrote:
> > The former may not be hard, but the latter would require functions
> > with typeclass constraints on their types to be annotated in the
> > interface file with what typeclass methods they called. Does that
> > sound h
Samuel Bronson wrote:
> The former may not be hard, but the latter would require functions
> with typeclass constraints on their types to be annotated in the
> interface file with what typeclass methods they called. Does that
> sound hard yet?
Compared to writing the rest of the compiler? No.
On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Samuel Bronson wrote:
> > After thinking about it for a while, I'm positive it would be a LOT of
> > work to get that to work in general, if it is even possible. Even
> > getting it to work in only specific, limited cases (such as within a
> >
Samuel Bronson wrote:
> After thinking about it for a while, I'm positive it would be a LOT of
> work to get that to work in general, if it is even possible. Even
> getting it to work in only specific, limited cases (such as within a
> module) would probably not be easy, since it is such an indirec
On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Samuel Bronson wrote:
> > Aren't the warnings just about as usefull as failures? Anyway, you
> > could always use the -Werrror flag for ghc...
> >
> > In any case, I would not like to have to implement an entire typeclass
> > at once... it wou
Samuel Bronson wrote:
> Aren't the warnings just about as usefull as failures? Anyway, you
> could always use the -Werrror flag for ghc...
>
> In any case, I would not like to have to implement an entire typeclass
> at once... it would interfere with incremental development.
Hmm. I guess I'm
On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bernard Pope wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps this section of the report might help:
> >
> > >From Section "4.3.2 Instance Declarations" in the Haskell Report:
> >
> >http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#instance-decls
> >
> > "If no bindi
Bernard Pope wrote:
>
> Perhaps this section of the report might help:
>
> >From Section "4.3.2 Instance Declarations" in the Haskell Report:
>
>http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#instance-decls
>
> "If no binding is given for some class method then the corresponding
> default c
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 17:18 -0700, Greg Buchholz wrote:
> Here's a little quirk I ran into recently. While making a little
> vector data type in class Num (code below), I didn't implement an
> instance of "fromInteger" (thinking I didn't need it). Well as you can
> probably guess, it turns ou
Here's a little quirk I ran into recently. While making a little
vector data type in class Num (code below), I didn't implement an
instance of "fromInteger" (thinking I didn't need it). Well as you can
probably guess, it turns out I did need it, and subsequently got a run
time exception. Wh
12 matches
Mail list logo
