On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> I agree with David that using explicit `coerce`s can be quite verbose and
> may need ScopedTypeVariables and InstanceSigs. But visible type application
> should always work, because class methods always have a fixed type argument
> order.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> 2. Defaulting to the implementation written in the class (or `error
> "undefined method"` in the absence of a default. This is essentially the
> default default.)
I want to be able to specify that a certain default definition is good
eno
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Gershom B wrote:
>
> Richard — your idea is really interesting. How would the dreaded role
> restriction have to be modified to detect and allow this sort of granularity?
It wouldn't. The role restriction is purely on a method-by-method basis. (Right
now, the rol
Richard — your idea is really interesting. How would the dreaded role
restriction have to be modified to detect and allow this sort of granularity?
—g
On January 9, 2017 at 1:34:17 PM, Richard Eisenberg (r...@cs.brynmawr.edu)
wrote:
> I agree with David that using explicit `coerce`s can be qui
I agree with David that using explicit `coerce`s can be quite verbose and may
need ScopedTypeVariables and InstanceSigs. But visible type application should
always work, because class methods always have a fixed type argument order.
Regardless, requiring users to do all this for GND on Monad wou
