Isaac wrote: > I wonder whether it would be safe for the compiler to infer simply by > the default methods mentioning each other in a cycle. It might miss > some cases when (probably involving laziness) the default methods > actually terminate and form an intended set of implemention, and warn > when it shouldn't... which is bad, but does that ever happen?
"mentioning each other in a cycle" is too imprecise unfortunately at least for two reasons: a) we could face a well-designed mutual recursion. b) we could face co-induction. The ultimate solution is to extend type signatures by termination requirements and to have a termination checker enforcing them. For instance, Andreas Abel has done groundbreaking work on termination checking. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
