Hi Marcin,
| There's no solid technical reason for this, but Haskell doesn't allow
| it at the moment because there isn't an easy way to name an instance
| declaration.
|
| There is another problem: even if we created a syntax to name them,
| if they would not be exported by default then
David Feuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Why can't [instances] be hidden in module imports/exports?
The way I see it, an instance declaration is an assertion that a
certain data type supports a certain set of operations. Thus, if the
data type and the operations on it are in scope, it makes
Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:38:14 -0800, Mark P Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
There's no solid technical reason for this, but Haskell doesn't allow
it at the moment because there isn't an easy way to name an instance
declaration.
There is another problem: even if we created a syntax to name them,
if
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
There is another problem: even if we created a syntax to name them,
if they would not be exported by default then current programs would
have to be changed.
Well, the default could be to export, unless explicitly hidden. If it
_is_ exported, you could have
(sorry to mess up mail threading, but I couldn't properly reply to the
message the way I'm using email right now--broken mail clients)
Recently, however, there has been some interest in using named instance
declarations in other ways, so perhaps we will see features like this
creeping into
