On 29 Apr 2015 02:06, "William ML Leslie" <william.leslie....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>You would not have two instances for (Foo Bar) that you expect to get
resolved implicitly in the same scope. You'd provide one of them
explicitly.
This is the important point. I actually prefer to allow instance
definitions that are not put into implicit scope automatically. Then a
separate directive brings an instance into implicit scope, otherwise it
must be passed explicitly.
The problem is you want the implicit resolution in static scope, so the
overload can be resolved at compile time. But at least this way you control
implicit resolution locally.
For example:
Module A defines named instance "a" for Foo Bar, and Module B defines "b"
for Too Bar, then:
module A {
instance Show (Foo Bar) as a where ...
}
module B {
instance Show (Foo Bar) as b where ...
}
module C {
import module A
import module B
use b for Show (Foo Bar)
f x = show x
}
Keean.
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
bitc-dev@coyotos.org
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
