That's an interesting question. I'm not even close to an expert, but I *think* that parametricity prevents those particular rules from breaking Safe Haskell guarantees. The laws may not *hold* for a broken instance, but I don't *think* that lets you break type safety or IO encapsulation. On Nov 13, 2014 2:03 PM, "Wolfgang Jeltsch" <g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org> wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 15.08.2014, 23:10 +0300 schrieb Wolfgang Jeltsch: > > Hi, > > > > the module Control.Arrow declares a set of rules for the Arrow class. It > > is marked “Trustworthy”, probably to allow these rules to actually fire. > > > > Now these rules are only correct for class instances that actually > > satisfy the arrow laws. If the author of another module defines an > > instance of Arrow that does not respect the laws, this other module > > could still be considered “Safe” by GHC, although the rules from > > Control.Arrow are bogus now. > > > > Is this considered a problem? > > > > All the best, > > Wolfgang > > Hi, > > could someone please answer this e-mail? This issue is important for me. > > All the best, > Wolfgang > > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
