Thank you for feeding my thoughts. How would this do for a slightly more detailed definition?
1. If the compiler encounters an ambiguous function, it will temporarily give it the type a -> b, or the type declared in the signature if there is one. 2. Type inference completes as normal. 3. If the inferred or declared type for an ambiguous name is sufficient to disambiguate it, it will be bound to the correct definition. Dan Doel wrote > f :: T -> Int > f t = ... > > f :: U -> Int -> Char > f u = ... > > t :: T > t = ... > > u :: U > u = ... > > i1 :: Int > i1 = f t Solving for everything but f, we get f :: T -> Int. > g :: (T -> Int) -> Int > g h = h t > > i2 :: Int > i2 = g f Solving for everything but f, we get f :: T -> Int. > v :: T > v = t > > v :: U > v = u > > i3 :: Int > i3 = f v May not be solvable, would fail to disambiguate. -- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/TDNR-without-new-operators-or-syntax-changes-tp5835927p5836657.html Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
