On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Interesting. Is this case also an example, or is it a non-feature? > > > > class C t where > > type K t :: Type > > type T t :: K t -> Type > > > > m :: t -> T t a > > > > > > Ah, that’s quite different! We should do strongly-connected-component > analysis of the associated-type declarations within a single class > declaration…. but we don’t currently do that. No difficulty in principle, > I think. > > > > You could open a ticket. (Do include a link to this email thread and to > #12088) > I’ve opened ticket #12612 <https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12612>. Assuming GHC accepted this definition, would the Template Haskell trick (or whatever replaces it) allow defining instances of C? -- Dave Menendez <d...@zednenem.com> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
