Re: relaxed instance rules spec (was: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve))

2006-03-08 Thread Jim Apple
On 3/7/06, Ben Rudiak-Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: # John Meacham wrote: # # Polymorphic recursion allows the construction of infinite types if I # # understand what you mean. # # No, that's different. An infinite type can't be written in (legal) Haskell. Though GHC with existentials allows so

Re: relaxed instance rules spec (was: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve))

2006-03-07 Thread Ben Rudiak-Gould
John Meacham wrote: On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:53:45AM -, Claus Reinke wrote: the problem is that we have somehow conjured up an infinite type for Mul to recurse on without end! Normally, such infinite types are ruled out by occurs-checks (unless you are working with Prolog III;-), so someon

Re: relaxed instance rules spec (was: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve))

2006-03-01 Thread Martin Sulzmann
Coverage is a sufficient condition to maintain termination. Though, Coverage is also sufficient to maintain confluence. Hence, we propose Weak Coverage which we know maintains confluence under some conditions. The main focus of the FD paper is how to restore confluence which is important for com

Re: relaxed instance rules spec (was: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve))

2006-03-01 Thread John Meacham
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:53:45AM -, Claus Reinke wrote: > - Mul recurses down a type in its second parameter > - types in Haskell are finite > - there is a non-terminating Mul inference > > the problem is that we have somehow conjured up an infinite > type for Mul to recurse on without end!

Re: relaxed instance rules spec (was: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve))

2006-03-01 Thread Claus Reinke
I urge you to read our paper "Understanding functional dependencies via Constraint Handling Rules", which you can find here http://research.microsoft.com/%7Esimonpj/papers/fd%2Dchr/. Simon, I had already read that paper briefly, but had moved on to scan some of the other publications in that a

RE: relaxed instance rules spec (was: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve))

2006-03-01 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
Claus, I urge you to read our paper "Understanding functional dependencies via Constraint Handling Rules", which you can find here http://research.microsoft.com/%7Esimonpj/papers/fd%2Dchr/. It will tell you more than you want to know about why relaxing apparently-conservative rules is entirely no

Re: relaxed instance rules spec (was: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve))

2006-02-28 Thread Ross Paterson
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:53:38PM -, Claus Reinke wrote: > class Fail all -- no instances! > > class TypeNotEq a b > instance Fail a => TypeNotEq a a > instance TypeNotEq a b > > class Test a b where test :: a -> b -> Bool > instance TypeNotEq a b => Test a b where test _ _ = False > instanc