On Wednesday 19 January 2005 21:48, Keean Schupke wrote: > 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?
Any idea? I'll propose you for the next Nobelprize in Programming Language Design ;--) Ben _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
