This and the fact that you may leave record fields unspecified when initially constructing a record are two things I'd probably change if I could. In the rare case of a class with a method that will usually be an error, you could still define that as the default method implementation in the class.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018, 04:36 Jurriaan Hage, <j.h...@uu.nl> wrote: > Hello, > > We are adding classes and instances to Helium. > > We wondered about the aspect that it is allowed to have a class instance > of which not all fields have a piece of code/value associated with them, > and > that as a result when you happen to call these, a run-time error results. > (see Sec. 4.3.2 of the Haskell 2010 report). > > Does anyone know of a rationale for this choice, since it seems rather > unhaskell-like. > > best, > Jur > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
