On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:11 PM, David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Richard Eisenberg <r...@cs.brynmawr.edu> > wrote: > >> 2. Defaulting to the implementation written in the class (or `error >> "undefined method"` in the absence of a default. This is essentially the >> default default.) > > I want to be able to specify that a certain default definition is good > enough not to worry about.
Is this the same as the purpose of the MINIMAL pragma? http://ghc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/glasgow_exts.html#minimal-pragma Imagine GND provides implementations for those methods whose types are amenable to `coerce`ion and leaves the other methods without definitions. Then, taking into account the MINIMAL pragma, GHC either does or does not produce a warning/error about missing class methods, maybe customized to mention the failure to `coerce` a method in GND. Would that be adequate? Regards, Reid Barton _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
