Done!
| -Original Message-
| From: George Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 21 January 2003 15:43
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: Dean Herington; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Re: Avoiding No explicit method ... warnings
|
| Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| [snip]
| One other idea
This isn't a bug, just a suggestion. It's not even a very important
suggestion, but one that might be worth implementing if it's easy and you can
find the the time. Or perhaps I am just doing things the wrong way?
The point is that I sometimes have something like the following situation
class
I think if you define a default method in the class definition you will not
get this message - the default one can do nothing.
Regards,
Keean Schupke
George Russell wrote:
This isn't a bug, just a suggestion. It's not even a very important
suggestion, but one that might be worth
George Russell wrote:
This isn't a bug, just a suggestion. It's not even a very important
suggestion, but one that might be worth implementing if it's easy and you can
find the the time. Or perhaps I am just doing things the wrong way?
The point is that I sometimes have something like the
| This seems to be a lot of mechanism for questionable benefit. A
simpler and cleaner
| approach, IMHO, is the following:
I rather agree.
One other idea though. Suppose you say
class ComplicatedClass x where
_simpleTitleFn :: x - String
muchMoreComplicatedTitleFn :: extra
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
[snip]
One other idea though. Suppose you say
class ComplicatedClass x where
_simpleTitleFn :: x - String
muchMoreComplicatedTitleFn :: extra arguments - x - IO ...
In general GHC doesn't report warning unused for variables whose name
begin
