Claus Reinke wrote:
ps. i was somewhat shocked to read that SPJ wants FDs gone.
Why? Simon has good taste. :)
de gustibus non est disputandum ;)
FD have uses and problems and AT have uses and problems. starting anew
with the latter doesn't fix the problems, it just changes their form.
F, FD, FC, AT, SPJ ;) WTH does it mean?
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:12:11AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Claus Reinke wrote:
ps. i was somewhat shocked to read that SPJ wants FDs gone.
Why? Simon has good taste. :)
de gustibus non est disputandum ;)
FD have uses and problems
hi mm (?-),
F, FD, FC, AT, SPJ ;) WTH does it mean?
sorry about this acronymitis :) there was a lengthy debate about some of these
things in the context of haskell' a year or so ago, and i just fell back into
the mood,
forgetting to explain my acronyms before using them again
F: System
Hello,
On 3/7/07, Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AT: associated types, as in GHC
ATs are not in any of the official GHC releases... Are they in the CVS head?
-Iavor
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
ATs are not in any of the official GHC releases... Are they in the CVS head?
darcs, these days;-) but yes, from 6.7. see:
announcement
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.general/14447
main? info page
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/Indexed_types
ghc status, with new features
| ATs are not in any of the official GHC releases... Are they in the CVS head?
The HEAD has fully-implemented associated *data types*, but not associated
*type synonyms*. We're working on the latter, quite hard. As Claus says, the
place to look is here
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -fglasgow-exts #-}
class Foo a b | a - b where
foo :: Foo b c = a - Maybe c
instance Foo String () where foo _ = Nothing
instance Foo Int String where foo 4 = Just (); foo _ = Nothing
There appears to be a type-safe way to use unsafeCoerce# for this:
import
On 03/03/07, C Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class Foo a b | a - b where foo :: a - FooBox b
data FooBox b = forall c. Foo b c = FooBox (Maybe c)
Existential boxes is indeed the method I've used to tackle this in
practice. However, it's kind of annoying, hence my email asking
whether
