Ralf Laemmel wrote:
Isaac wrote:
I wonder whether it would be safe for the compiler to infer simply by
the default methods mentioning each other in a cycle. It might miss
some cases when (probably involving laziness) the default methods
actually terminate and form an intended set of implemention, and warn
when it shouldn't... which is bad, but does that ever happen?
"mentioning each other in a cycle" is too imprecise unfortunately at
least for two reasons:
a) we could face a well-designed mutual recursion.
b) we could face co-induction.
I know! I said so! My question is whether anyone has an example of
doing either of those in mutually-recursive DEFAULT METHOD definitions?
sorry for yelling
You did not say anything that's imprecise about "mentioning each other
in a cycle", just the well-known fact that it's not equivalent to total
termination checking (in fact, it's neither fully an overestimate nor
underestimate of termination -- it's just an estimate that's likely to
be right when used in the context of default method definitions).
Isaac
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
