| I think the implementation is some 90% complete though, in GHC head.
| Certainly you can write many associated types programs already -- the
| missing part is finishing off associated type synonyms, iirc.
...and we have a working implementation of that too, thanks to Tom Schrijvers.
It's not
| I think the implementation is some 90% complete though, in GHC head.
| Certainly you can write many associated types programs already -- the
| missing part is finishing off associated type synonyms, iirc.
...and we have a working implementation of that too, thanks to Tom
Schrijvers. It's
Hello Simon,
Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:37:59 AM, you wrote:
| I think the implementation is some 90% complete though, in GHC head.
| Certainly you can write many associated types programs already -- the
| missing part is finishing off associated type synonyms, iirc.
...and we have a working
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| I think the implementation is some 90% complete though, in GHC head.
| Certainly you can write many associated types programs already -- the
| missing part is finishing off associated type synonyms, iirc.
...and we have a working implementation of that too, thanks to
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello Simon,
Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:37:59 AM, you wrote:
| I think the implementation is some 90% complete though, in GHC head.
| Certainly you can write many associated types programs already -- the
| missing part is finishing off associated type synonyms, iirc.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, peterv wrote:
I tried to do something in CAL that I could not solve without functional
dependencies. In their support forum, it got mentioned that func.deps
propably won't make into the next Haskell standard... Any comments on that?
Now, the thing I tried to solve was:
regarding these funcdeps, are they ill as the rumor goes?
Thanks,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Henning Thielemann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:44 AM
To: peterv
Cc: Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Functional dependencies *not* part
peterv wrote:
instance Vector Vector2 where
dot (V2 x1 y1) (V2 x2 y2) = x1 * x2 + y1 * y2
Amazing, so simple it is, Yoda would say ;)
I did not realize one could perform partial application on types when
declaring instances (I mean not specifying the type of Vector2 in instance
Vector
2007/7/12, peterv [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Amazing, so simple it is, Yoda would say ;)
I did not realize one could perform partial application on types when
declaring instances (I mean not specifying the type of Vector2 in instance
Vector Vector2).
You ought to meditate on the type class 'Monad,'
jules:
peterv wrote:
instance Vector Vector2 where
dot (V2 x1 y1) (V2 x2 y2) = x1 * x2 + y1 * y2
Amazing, so simple it is, Yoda would say ;)
I did not realize one could perform partial application on types when
declaring instances (I mean not specifying the type of Vector2 in instance
10 matches
Mail list logo
