On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 12:39:35PM +1100, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> droundy:
> > I was just thinking today. Is there any reason we couldn't have infix
> > multiparameter typeclasses? For typeclasses standing as witnesses of
> > relationships it'd be much clearer, for example to have something
droundy:
> I was just thinking today. Is there any reason we couldn't have infix
> multiparameter typeclasses? For typeclasses standing as witnesses of
> relationships it'd be much clearer, for example to have something like
> (a :<: b) rather than the always-vague (LT a b) which either reads the
I was just thinking today. Is there any reason we couldn't have infix
multiparameter typeclasses? For typeclasses standing as witnesses of
relationships it'd be much clearer, for example to have something like
(a :<: b) rather than the always-vague (LT a b) which either reads the
same as the infix
