On 31 January 2006 17:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:17:57AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> On 30 January 2006 21:49, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>>> In the present case, people aren't (only) opposing the M-R out of
>>> principle, but because they actually use overloaded variable
>>> definitions and (at least sometimes) want to leave off the
>>> signature.
>>>
>>> So I don't see how one could claim, as on the wiki, the warning
>>> "wouldn't happen much". I suspect it would happen, and annoy
>>> people, and defeat the reason that people want to remove the M-R.
>>
>> The assertion that it "wouldn't happen much" is based on the
>> observation earlier in this thread that it was actually difficult to
>> write some code that illustrated the problem.
>
> This indicates that the warning "wouldn't happen much" _when you want
> sharing_. But it would happen all the time when you don't want
> sharing, eg. in the case Malcolm Wallace just posted.
So you either add a type signature, or turn off the warning. What's the
problem?
I suspect you're saying that you don't want a warning by default, and
you don't want the langage to recommend that compilers issue a warning
by default, right? If so, your objection is duly noted and I'll add the
point to the wiki.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
