On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 16:08 -0700, Ryan Ingram wrote: > In particular I do NOT want each function in its own typeclass; the > previous post saying: > > foo x = map (bar x) > should be rejected as ambiguous without a type signature somewhere
What type signature do you propose? It seems as if you're proposing that doubleSet :: Set.Set Int -> Set.Set Int doubleSet = map (*2) doubleList :: [Int] -> [Int] doubleList :: map (*2) work, but that you not be allowed to notice that the definitions are identical and substitute double = map (*2) for both definitions. Sorry, but I use Haskell specifically because I do *not* want to use C ++. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
