Hi, Am Freitag, den 26.07.2013, 23:16 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones: > There is something odd about this. "IncoherentInstances" is meant to > say "I don't care which path you take to proving this constraint". So > if we have > instance C Int a > instance C b Int > and we try to solve (C Int Int) we should arbitrarily pick either. > But we don't. > > So I rather think that IncoherentInstances should be modified so it > really does what it says.
I thought about this as well, but after reading the docs (which document what is happing right now) it seemed to me that this behavior was intentional. But if it is ok to liberate the meaning of IncoherentInstances, even better. I’ll put it on my TODO list for NT stuff. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
