On 01-Jul-1998, Simon L Peyton Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, on further reflection, I now think:
>
> in any case where ambiguity would not result
> the original class declaration should be re-formulated
>
> So, I now think that the existing rule (all class variables
> must appear in each class-operation type signature) is probably
> the right one, but on stylistic rather than technical grounds.
If there are only stylistic rather than technical grounds for
avoiding a particular construct, wouldn't it be better to make
it a warning rather than an error?
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
