On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Conor McBride <co...@strictlypositive.org> wrote: > Jón's proposal was to improve the latter situation by allowing the subclass > to specify a default (partial) implementation of a superclass. So we might > write > > class Applicative f where > return :: x -> f x > (<*>) :: f (s -> t) -> f s -> f t > instance Functor f where > fmap = pure . (<*>) > > giving not only a subclass constraint (Functor f =>) but also a standard > means to satisfy it. Whenever an Applicative instance is declared, its > Functor sub-instance is unpacked: buy one, get one free. > > This, on its own, is not quite enough. For one thing, we need a way to > switch it off. I should certainly be permitted to write something like > > instance Applicative Blah where > return = ... > (<*>) = ... > hiding instance Functor Blah
The use of 'hiding' here I'd object to, as it really isn't a good description of what's going on. Personally I'd think it more clear to explicitly opt into an automatic instance: instance Applicative Blah where return = ... (<*>) = ... deriving (Functor) -- or something like that but one of the advantages of John Meachem's original proposal was that it allowed for example a library author to split up a class without users changing their instances, which my idea would not do. I suppose that alone makes it far less useful, but I think there is an argument to be made about how much of this process we want to be explicit and how much we want to be implicit. _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
