RE: foralls in class assertions

2002-09-11 Thread Ashley Yakeley
At 2002-07-22 04:58, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >This business of having 'foralls' in a context (whether for a class or >a function) is not hard to implement in principle, but in practice it'd >take few days of hacking I guess. And, more to the point, thinking. >What are the interactions with fun

RE: foralls in class assertions

2002-07-22 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
ntexts would change my life and I would love you for ever", rather than "it'd be nice". Simon "lazy evaluation" PJ | -Original Message- | From: Ashley Yakeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: 19 July 2002 03:24 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones; Haskell List | Subje

RE: foralls in class assertions

2002-07-18 Thread Ashley Yakeley
At 2002-02-20 13:15, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >OK, so it does look as though it's the same idea as >that described in our paper. Good. > >I have not implemented, yet. I don't suppose you did for GHC 5.04?... >As always my implementation >priorities are strongly influenced by my perception

RE: foralls in class assertions

2002-03-01 Thread Ashley Yakeley
At 2002-02-20 13:15, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >I have not implemented, yet. As always my implementation >priorities are strongly influenced by my perception of whether >some enhancement would be used. Maybe you can outline >why such a change would be useful to you? I only have the >example in

RE: foralls in class assertions

2002-02-20 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
ld be useful to you? I only have the example in our paper as motivation so far. Simon | -Original Message- | From: Ashley Yakeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: 20 February 2002 01:08 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones; Haskell List | Subject: RE: foralls in class assertions | | | At 2002-02-19

RE: foralls in class assertions

2002-02-19 Thread Ashley Yakeley
At 2002-02-19 09:21, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >I don't know if it makes sense. You've written down some syntax, >but it's not clear to me what you intend by it. Hmm... it should be straightforward... > instance (forall a. Eq a => Eq (f a)) => Eq (Rose f a) where.. I assume that the 'a

RE: foralls in class assertions

2002-02-19 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
scribe why instance decls of the form instance (forall a. Eq a => Eq (f a)) => Eq (Rose f a) where.. might be useful. Simon | -Original Message- | From: Ashley Yakeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: 16 February 2002 10:48 | To: Haskell List | Subject: foralls in class

foralls in class assertions

2002-02-16 Thread Ashley Yakeley
It would be nice to be able to put foralls in class assertions. For instance: class HasIdentity a where { identity :: a; }; class Composable a b ab | a b -> ab where { compose :: a -> b -> ab; };