On 09-Jun-2000, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A) The unqualified form should be legal because the type signature
> can only refer to the 'reverse' defined in this module
>
> B) The unqualified form is ambiguous. All occurrences of 'reverse',
> other than the definition itself, must be qualified
I think that I too am leaning towards option B, however I think that there
may be reason to go even a bit further than this, and require the definition
to be qualified, as well. (this would be restricted to ambiguous names only,
of course)
M.reverse :: [a] -> [a]
M.reverse xs = Prelude.reverse (tail xs)
or is this too much baggage?
Rob
