Right! I knew about this, but somehow it didn't pop up in my mind in
this case. Thanks a lot!
Roman
* Iavor Diatchki [2013-03-28 17:07:18-0700]
> Hi,
>
> Aha! This page explains what is going on:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/blog/LetGeneralisationInGhc7
>
> The summary is that the def
Hi,
Aha! This page explains what is going on:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/blog/LetGeneralisationInGhc7
The summary is that the definition of what is "local" is not what one might
expect: only things that depend
on variables in scope are considered to be locals, other bindings, that
could
Hi,
This does not appear to be related to ImplicitParameters, rather
`MonoLocalBinds` is not working as expected.
Here is an example without implicit parameters that compiles just fine, but
would be rejected if `p` was monomorphic:
{-# LANGUAGE NoMonomorphismRestriction, MonoLocalBinds #-}
class
