Or if the specificity of (/\) is important to you, you could define f
at the global scope using that type, not export it, then declare (/\)
as equal to f but with a more restrictive type.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Alexander Dunlap
alexander.dun...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of declaring
Strange little bit of code:
http://moonpatio.com:8080/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=829#a829
If I do any of the following, all of which seem natural to me, it fails to
typecheck:
1. move f out of the 'where' clause (with or without a type signature)
2. put the same type signature on f as is
Andrew Wagner wrote:
Strange little bit of code:
http://moonpatio.com:8080/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=829#a829
If I do any of the following, all of which seem natural to me, it fails to
typecheck:
1. move f out of the 'where' clause (with or without a type signature)
2. put the same
So...there's just no good way to avoid the duplication?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:10 PM, wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.orgwrote:
Andrew Wagner wrote:
Strange little bit of code:
http://moonpatio.com:8080/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=829#a829
If I do any of the following, all of which seem
Instead of declaring (/\) :: Eq a = Sentence a - Sentence a -
Sentence a, you could say (/\) :: Eq a - [a] - [a] - [a]. Then it
would work in both places. ([a] - [a] - [a] is a more general type
than [[Term a]] - [[Term a]] - [[Term a]], so functions with the
former type can be used in place of
