You point is that the (C Int) dictionary has (C String) as a superclass, and (C
String) has (C Int) as a superclass. So the two instances are mutually
recursive, but that's ok.
That is not unreasonable. But it is dangerous. Consider
class C [a] => C a
Then any dictionary for (C a) would contain a dictionary for (C [a]) which
would contain a dictionary for C [[a]], and so on. Haskell is lazy so we might
even be able to build this infinite dictionary, but it *is* infinite.
It's a bit like the "recursive instance" stuff introduced in "Scrap your
boilerplate with class".
After 5 mins thought I can't see a reason why this could not be made to work.
But it'd take work to do. If you have a compelling application maybe you can
open a feature request ticket, describing it, and referring this thread?
Has anyone else come across this?
Simon
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan Trinkle
Sent: 20 July 2011 17:37
To: [email protected]
Subject: Superclass Cycle via Associated Type
The following code doesn't compile, but it seems sensible enough to me. Is
this a limitation of GHC or is there something I'm missing?
class C (A x) => C x where
type A x :: *
instance C Int where
type A Int = String
instance C String where
type A String = Int
The error I get is:
SuperclassCycle.hs:1:1:
Cycle in class declarations (via superclasses):
SuperclassCycle.hs:(1,1)-(2,15): class C (A x) => C x where {
type family A x :: *; }
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
