On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 8:41 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote
You may be interested in Carlos Camarao’s interesting work. For a long
> time now he has advocated (in effect) making each function into its own
> type class, rather that grouping them into classes. Perhaps that is in
> line with your thi
ok, cool! I'm not sure what modular scoping would look like, but it'd be
fun what that looks like!
I do think that the prime list isn't the best list though for figuring that
out / experimentations thereof :)
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:36 PM wrote:
> Hi Carter,
>
> I am not proposing "local scop
Hi Carter,
I am not proposing "local scoping". I think local scoping
does not have substantial gains and at least introduces
some difficulties and complexity (I have tried it in system CT).
Even modular scope for instances is not mandatory, as I said.
A general defaulting rule is a remedy, if in
Carlos, local scoping for type classes is flat out not gonna happen in the
haskell language standard any time soon.
if you want to make a case for it, demonstrate its utility, this mailing
list isn't for that. Especially for something that fundamentally changes
the programming model of the languag
