On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Thomas DuBuisson <thomas.dubuis...@gmail.com> wrote: > We're getting more meta than Haskell provides cleanly, but all > significant uses I can currently think of for something like that > would require universal quantification over types: > > Forall types t. > t `notElem` someTypes --> fails (tyUnification t MyType) > > I'm curious what your thinking is here.
I'm developing a EDSL for SQL queries that I'll properly announce tomorrow. The idea I have in mind is that this code should not typecheck: delete $ from $ \table -> set table [] You should not SET something inside a DELETE statement. However, currently that will typecheck---not because I don't know how to fix it, but because the types were already messy enough and I didn't ponder about the tradeoffs. So I would like to put the above snippet on a test suite that says "this should not typecheck". It will serve both as a reminder to fix it someday and as a regression test. Of course, I could stick each of these on a separate file and try to compile it, but that would be a PITA to setup. Is this a crazy idea? =P Cheers, =) -- Felipe. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
