On Sep 15, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> not really; if you type ":info Coercible" you see that there are no > instances created. Just the type-checking of uses of coerce is a bit > special. Even stranger, I think. I understand that there aren't really any instances of Coercible, but it certainly looks like there is, to users. > foo :: Coercible a b => a -> b -> () > foo = undefined > bar = foo 'a' 'b' will certainly compile. For an ordinary class, that would mean that we should expect Coercible Char Char to exist (or perhaps Coercible a a, or something similar). But it won't. This would appear to be quite strange. To be clear, I'm not asking for an explanation for me -- I think I know what's going on here. I just think that this behavior requires a small section in the user manual, because it's a user-visible change to the language that GHC compiles. I would say the haddock docs could point to the user manual, to avoid the duplication (which I similarly dislike, for sure!) Richard > > I think the question is rather: Where would the user search for > documentation. And given that there are identifiers related to the > feature (Coercible, coercion), the haddocks for that are the natural > place to search. And as I’d like to avoid duplication, I’d not put the > docs somewhere else again. > > I don’t mind adding a pointer from the “Special built-in functions” > section to the haddock docs, though, if you think it would be helpful. > > Greetings, > Joachim > -- > Joachim Breitner > e-Mail: m...@joachim-breitner.de > Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de > ICQ#: 74513189 > Jabber-ID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs