Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:54:44 -0700, Levent Erkok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> We'll be very pleased to see any examples where polymorphism plays
> a key role, if any, but a simple "yes, they are useful" or "no,
> I never needed them to be polymorphic" response is fine too.
I've just checked that I probably. never used that. And if someone would,
it could be easily rewritten.
I would find strange to have this monomorphic however. What is gained
by monomorphism? Not that overloaded values can be computed only once,
because monomorphism restriction or monomorphic type signature make
them monomorphic anyway (and compilers would probably perform the
optimization even if the restriction was removed). Perhaps some
strange programs could be made unambiguous without some explicit
signature or asTypeOf...
It should apply to list comprehensions too.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/ GCS/M d- s+:-- a23 C+++$ UL++>++++$ P+++ L++>++++$ E-
^^ W++ N+++ o? K? w(---) O? M- V? PS-- PE++ Y? PGP+ t
QRCZAK 5? X- R tv-- b+>++ DI D- G+ e>++++ h! r--%>++ y-
