would love you for ever, rather than it'd
be nice.
Simon lazy evaluation PJ
| -Original Message-
| From: Ashley Yakeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 19 July 2002 03:24
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones; Haskell List
| Subject: RE: foralls in class assertions
|
|
| At 2002-02-20 13:15, Simon
At 2002-02-20 13:15, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
OK, so it does look as though it's the same idea as
that described in our paper. Good.
I have not implemented, yet.
I don't suppose you did for GHC 5.04?...
As always my implementation
priorities are strongly influenced by my perception of
be useful to you? I only have the
example in our paper as motivation so far.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Ashley Yakeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 20 February 2002 01:08
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones; Haskell List
| Subject: RE: foralls in class assertions
|
|
| At 2002-02-19 09:21
I don't know if it makes sense. You've written down some syntax,
but it's not clear to me what you intend by it.
The instance decls remind me somewhat of the generalisation described
towards the end of a paper Ralf Hinze and I wrote, Generic type
classes.
There we describe why instance decls
At 2002-02-19 09:21, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I don't know if it makes sense. You've written down some syntax,
but it's not clear to me what you intend by it.
Hmm... it should be straightforward...
instance (forall a. Eq a = Eq (f a)) = Eq (Rose f a) where..
I assume that the 'a'
