Re: Type checker too lazy

[Malcolm Wallace]

> data Record = R {
>      blub :: Foo a => a -> [a]
>     }

Wouldn't the pure-Haskell'98 definition

  data Foo a => Record a = R {
       blub :: a -> [a]
      }

work as well, if not better?  Certainly, ghc accepts both of 

>   print (bar (3::Int)) -- works!
>   print ((blub r) (3::Int)) -- works also!

with this definition.

Regards,
   Malcolm

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs