CAN_OVERLAP and CAN_BE_OVERLAPPED? (instead of OVERLAPPING and OVERLAPPABLE)
Or CAN-OVERLAP, CAN-BE-OVERLAPPED That’s ok with me if that’s what you all want! Simon From: Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Krzysztof Skrzetnicki Sent: 29 July 2014 16:56 To: Brandon Allbery Cc: Simon Peyton Jones; Andreas Abel; GHC users; Haskell Libraries (librar...@haskell.org); ghc-devs Subject: Re: Overlapping and incoherent instances How about CAN_OVERLAP? -- Krzysztof 29-07-2014 15:40, "Brandon Allbery" <allber...@gmail.com<mailto:allber...@gmail.com>> napisał(a): On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Andreas Abel <andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de<mailto:andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de>> wrote: +1. I like Niklas' syntax better. Also OVERLAPPABLE is a horrible word, OVERLAPPING sound less formidable (even though it might be slightly less accurrate). We already get "overlap ok" in instance-related type errors, so OVERLAP_OK wouldn't be particularly alien even if it doesn't quite fit in with existing pragmas. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com<mailto:allber...@gmail.com> ballb...@sinenomine.net<mailto:ballb...@sinenomine.net> unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list librar...@haskell.org<mailto:librar...@haskell.org> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
