Ashley Yakeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have a curious Haskell design pattern. It's called "one class per > function".
[...] > I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing or what. In many cases, I think a finer split would be advantageous, e.g. the much-debated "Num". One obvious disadvantage is that a lot of inferred type classes may become less readable (:t saying "Num a => .." is probably more informative for many than "CommutativeRing a => ..") -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
