Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Neither I nor the authors claim that their proposal is the ultimate "grand scheme", yet. Still I think there are very interesting ideas in there that should be considered for experimental implementation or further research.
But thats interesting isn't it. If one extension can be defined in terms of the other, then only one of the extensions is necessary. There is obviously some connection between functional dependancies and named instances. Maybe there is a better mechanism that both can be defined in terms of? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
