| Another possiblity would be to make the ConCls class look like this
| class ConCls c where
|name :: String
|arity :: Int
|...etc...
|
| Now we'd have to give an explicit type argument at the call site:
|
|show {| Constr c t |} (Con x) = (name {| c |})
* Language philosophers who are skimming this discussion will want to
take a look at below.
Simon PJ writes:
One thing that is slowing me down is a design uncertainty: how to
deal cleanly with constructors. To write read, show, etc, one needs
access to the constructor name, fixity
| and I know from testing earlier versions that the
| generic-classes support was pretty buggy. Is there any hope
| of a revival? Does it already work in CVS? I suspect it will
| rot away if nobody works on it.
|
| Any comments from the implementors - does the idea fit well
| with ghc? Is it
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:15:36PM -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Another possiblity would be to make the ConCls class look like this
class ConCls c where
name :: String
arity :: Int
...etc...
Now we'd have to give an explicit type argument at the call
