> On Tuesday 26 March 2002 17:31, you wrote:
> A number of people have discussed the use of implicit parameters to
> mimic global variables in Haskell. I am wondering if any have done the
> same for a first-class module system such as that proposed by Shields
> and Jones. It seems to make a trem
Fergus Henderson writes:
> On 07-Nov-2000, Tom Pledger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Supposing that (some version of) Haskell had first class modules, and
> > type variables could be universally quantified at the module level,
> > would rule 2 of the monomorphism restriction go away?
>
> N
On 07-Nov-2000, Tom Pledger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Supposing that (some version of) Haskell had first class modules, and
> type variables could be universally quantified at the module level,
> would rule 2 of the monomorphism restriction go away?
No.
|Rule 2. Any monomorphic type vari
Mark Lillibridge wrote:
>
> Claus Reinke wrote:
> > `First class modules' are just that: modules that are also first
> > class data objects of the programming language (e.g., records
> > containing functions).
>
> I would alter that to "(e.g., records containing functions _and
> type
