There was a thread about this recently.
In any case, if you load the code interpreted (which happens if there
is no .o or .hi file of the module lying around), then you can
look inside all you want. But if it loads compiled, then you only
have access to the exported symbols. The reason is becaus
On Dec 17, 2007 8:18 AM, Nicholls, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The approach is deliberate...but I accept may be harder than it needs to
> be...I'm interested in Haskell because of the alleged power/formality of
> it's type system against the relatively weakness of OO ones...the irony
> at th
On Dec 17, 2007 1:18 PM, Nicholls, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really with this...
>
> The open case (as in OO) seems to be more like the Haskell class
> construct, i.e. if new types declare themselves to be members of a class
> then they must satisfy certain constaintsI can then spec
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicholls, Mark
>
> The open case (as in OO) seems to be more like the Haskell class
> construct, i.e. if new types declare themselves to be members
> of a class
> then they must satisfy certain constaintsI can then
> specify
Not really with this...
The open case (as in OO) seems to be more like the Haskell class
construct, i.e. if new types declare themselves to be members of a class
then they must satisfy certain constaintsI can then specify "equals"
with the class and leave the onus on the implementor to impleme
