My understanding of the MR is heavily influenced by the work I did on
Hatchet, which is based
directly on Mark Jones' paper (and code) Typing Haskell in Haskell.
I thought I would go back to that paper and see how he defines
simple pattern bindings
and the MR.
I now quote directly from the
Bernie Pope answered:
1. Why do the rules of the monomorphism restriction explicitly mention
*simple* pattern bindings?
Where is the difference, especially as there is a translation to
simple pattern bindings?
Why should
p | a==b = 2
| otherwise = 3
be
Hello,
I don't take my advice to go to haskell-cafe :-)
The discussion continued outside the mailing list, and now I have
two questions myself:
1. Why do the rules of the monomorphism restriction explicitly mention
*simple* pattern bindings?
Where is the difference, especially as there
On 23/09/2006, at 4:33 AM, Christian Sievers wrote:
Hello,
I don't take my advice to go to haskell-cafe :-)
I will take your advice :)
The discussion continued outside the mailing list, and now I have
two questions myself:
1. Why do the rules of the monomorphism restriction explicitly
On 9/23/06, Bernie Pope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a pattern binding is not simple, it must have a data constructor
on the lhs, therefore it cannot be overloaded. So the (dreaded) MR only
applies to simple pattern bindings.
I thought it was simple pattern bindings that could be *exempted*
On 24/09/2006, at 1:46 AM, Michael Shulman wrote:
On 9/23/06, Bernie Pope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a pattern binding is not simple, it must have a data constructor
on the lhs, therefore it cannot be overloaded. So the (dreaded) MR
only
applies to simple pattern bindings.
I thought it
