Am Donnerstag, den 03.12.2009, 01:40 +0100 schrieb Sjoerd Visscher:
The idea is that there's just enough unwrapping such that you don't
need to use getDual and appEndo.
Yes, but what does
Dual [1] `mappend Dual [2]
mean then? Should it use the Monoid instance of Dual and return
Dual [2,
In the case of Dual [1] `mappend` Dual [2] there's no need to do any
unwrapping. There is if you say:
l :: [Int]
l = Dual [1] `mappend` Dual [2]
The way I think this could work is that when the type checker detects a type
error, it will first try to resolve it by newtype unwrapping (or wrapping
Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
In the case of Dual [1] `mappend` Dual [2] there's no need to do any
unwrapping. There is if you say:
l :: [Int]
l = Dual [1] `mappend` Dual [2]
The way I think this could work is that when the type checker detects a type
error, it will first try to resolve it by
Am Donnerstag, den 03.12.2009, 01:16 +0100 schrieb Martijn van
Steenbergen:
So here's a totally wild idea Sjoerd and I came up with.
What if newtypes were unwrapped implicitly?
What advantages and disadvantages would it have?
In what cases would this lead to ambiguous code?
1)
instance
The idea is that there's just enough unwrapping such that you don't need to use
getDual and appEndo.
On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:25 AM, Holger Siegel wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 03.12.2009, 01:16 +0100 schrieb Martijn van
Steenbergen:
So here's a totally wild idea Sjoerd and I came up with.
What
