Thank you Oleg
I have implemented type-level TYPEREP (along with a small
library for
higher-order functional programming at the type level).
Overlapping
instances may indeed be avoided. The library does not use
functional
dependencies either.
So this is essentially the
Hi all
THE TOPIC: [from the original post]
TypeFamilies vs. FunctionalDependencies type-level
recursion
David Mazieres dm-list-haskell-prime at scs.stanford.edu
Sun May 29 20:59:44 CEST 2011
... GHC is on its way to accepting a ~ b as a constraint
that
types a and b are equal. If there were
At Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:25:31 +1200,
Anthony Clayden wrote:
Totally brilliant, and almost impenetrable.
If I understand what's going on (big IF), I'm wondering a
few things:
- You've used type-level NAT to encode the type.
What if two different types get encoded as the same NAT?
In
The Haskell 2010 report contains ambiguous and sometimes contradictory
definitions of the terms simple pattern binding and declaration
group. The confusion is compounded by the phrasing of the
monomorphism restriction, which is carried over from the Haskell98
report in which a different
A recent thread on the haskell cafe mailing list summarizes the
problem:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2011-June/093488.html
To resolve this confusion, I propose applying the following changes to
the Haskell 2010 report for the next revision of the language:
I think
At Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:06:09 +0100,
Paterson, Ross wrote:
I don't believe the definition of depends in Section 4.5.1 needs
to change. The Report consistently uses expression type signature
for the expression and type signature for the declaration, so it is
clear that the latter is meant
