Bjorn Lisper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Two interpretations of a code are "correct", but one is "more correct" >> than the other. > It is quite similar in spirit to the concept of principal type in > Hindley-Milner type systems. An expression can have many types but > only one "best" (most general) type in that system. Now, I'm not any kind of expert on this, but isn't the most general HM type one that encompasses the others, and *not* one out of a set of ambigous (and mutually exclusive) types? -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Dylan Thurston
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Brian Boutel
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Ketil Malde
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Ch. A. Herrmann
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Ketil Malde
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Revamping the numeric classes Bjorn Lisper