Mark P Jones wrote:
>
> | Ok your example is better except that the runnable constructor must be
> | used. Are they any planes to adding implicate type conversion rules to
> | Haskell?
>
> I assume that you mean "implicit" and, more specifically, that you
> mean "something that will automatically insert/remove the Runnable
> constructor for me whenever necessary"? If that is what you mean:
> no, I don't think that is feasible, or even possible. But if you
> don't agree, or if you meant something else, then you should feel
> free to prove me wrong. It won't be easy, however, because you will
> need to show how the Haskell type system can be modified to support
> the features that you'd like without compromising on any other
> features that you want to retain, like polymorphism, overloading,
> and a coherent semantics for well-typed terms.
>
> All the best,
> Mark
I could be wrong, as I have not really looked at it, but doesn't the
domain conversion part of the Basic algebra proposal deal with implicit
conversion?
--
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
