On 2008-04-30, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:18:10PM +, Aaron Denney wrote:
>> And there is a lot that clearly isn't battle tested in a reasonable new
>> form, though the current practice is widely agreed upon to be broken.
>> Examples include all monads
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:18:47PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:24AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > The current proposal on the table for what to do about the monomorphism
> > restriction (henceforth MR) is
> >
> > * remove the MR entirely
>
> Just to be clear, a
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:18:10PM +, Aaron Denney wrote:
> And there is a lot that clearly isn't battle tested in a reasonable new
> form, though the current practice is widely agreed upon to be broken.
> Examples include all monads having fail, rather than only those in a
> subclass, monad no
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:24AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
> The current proposal on the table for what to do about the monomorphism
> restriction (henceforth MR) is
>
> * remove the MR entirely
Just to be clear, are we talking only about Rule 1 of the MR?
Rule 2 seems unavoidable, but it
