No, I don't think that would be adequate, but maybe there's a way to work that in. It's inadequate because MINIMAL doesn't carry any assertion of efficiency. If I indicate I want a class derived by GND, and it works, then I expect its implementation to be, at worst, very very slightly slower than the underlying implementation. If the class author doesn't make such a claim, I want users to have to be explicit about the methods derived by GND.
On Jan 12, 2017 8:01 AM, "Reid Barton" <rwbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
