On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
You point is that the (C Int) dictionary has (C String) as a superclass, and
(C String) has (C Int) as a superclass. So the two instances are mutually
recursive, but that’s ok.
That is not unreasonable. But it
I talked to Dimitrios. Fundamentally we think we should be able to handle
recursive superclasses, albeit we have a bit more work to do on the type
inference engine first.
The situation we think we can handle ok is stuff like Edward wants (I've
removed all the methods):
class LeftModule
2011/7/22 Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com:
I talked to Dimitrios. Fundamentally we think we should be able to handle
recursive superclasses, albeit we have a bit more work to do on the type
inference engine first.
The situation we think we can handle ok is stuff like Edward wants
2011/7/22 Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com
I talked to Dimitrios. Fundamentally we think we should be able to handle
recursive superclasses, albeit we have a bit more work to do on the type
inference engine first.
The situation we think we can handle ok is stuff like Edward wants
2011/7/22 Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com:
Yeah, this is pretty much what I ended up doing. As I said, I don't
think I lose anything in expressiveness by going the MPTC route, I
just think the two separate but linked classes way reads better. So
it's just a would be nice thing. Do recursive
On 11-07-22 02:26 PM, David Smith wrote:
I tried to build the newest haskell-platform-2011.2.01 from source on
Ubuntu 11.04, following the instructions
http://www.vex.net/~trebla/haskell/haskell-platform.xhtml. But there was
still an configure error.
[...]
checking for library containing
My situation is fairly similar to Gabor's, and, like him, I was able to make
do with an equality superclass. However, instead of combining two classes,
I found that I needed to add a third.
My concept here is to create two monads which share much of their
functionality, but not all of it.
