] paring back the self type to be, well, just a type
It's not just monads that require parameterized self types. It comes
up even in something like a generic collection type, if you want to
have a map operator.
I agree that the problems you raised are real, but I think giving up
on the self type
I've been reading more closely into the impl/iface code and I think I've
found another problem. The current `self` type is actually more than a
type---rather it's a kind of type constructor. I think we should change
it to be just a type, because we do not have other type constructors in
our
Hi,
I've been a lurker on this list for a little while now. Just thought I'd
point out that the solution to this in Haskell is the 'kind' system, see
http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#sect4.1.1. The equivalent
of the line 'impl of foouint for uint' would cause an error that foo
On 4/12/12 2:08 PM, Dave Halperin wrote:
I'm not advocating either way on this in terms of the complexity
tradeoff for adding a kind system, just pointing out that it's what
you'd need to make the current system work and it's not completely
crazy to want that flexibility out of the type
