Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > | Hugs "demands Integral" because that's what it was told to do > | to follow the report. So in that sense, yes, the code > | depends on having only one class. But it would be easy for > | someone to change that. > | > | Then again, if we're following the rules of minimal change > | for Haskell 98, then I wouldn't have thought this was up for > | grabs. (I'm thinking, for example, of the unnecessary "same > | context" restriction on mutually recursive binding groups, > | which has more practical impact, is very clearly a "bug", and > | has not (AFAIK) been fixed in Haskell 98. Then there's David > | Wakeling's generalized gap proposal, and ...) > > That is a fair point, and is exactly the reason I bother the Haskell > list with > these proposals rather than simply executing them. This is an unforced > change, as you point out, but in fact GHC and NHC currently do one > thing, and > Hugs does another (i.e. follows the spec!). So some of us have to > change > our implementations.
hbc is on the Integral side, if that counts. :-) Just because ghc doesn't follow the spec isn't a good reason to change the spec. :-) -- Lennart _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell