Claus Reinke writes:
The main argument for ATS is that the extra parameter for the
functionally dependend type disappears, but as you say, that
should be codeable in FDs. I say should be, because that does
not seem to be the case at the moment.
My approach for trying the encoding was
Stefan Wehr writes:
Martin Sulzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote::
Stefan Wehr writes:
[...]
Manuel (Chakravarty) and I agree that it should be possible to
constrain associated type synonyms in the context of class
definitions. Your example shows that this feature is actually
Martin Sulzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote::
Stefan Wehr writes:
[...]
Manuel (Chakravarty) and I agree that it should be possible to
constrain associated type synonyms in the context of class
definitions. Your example shows that this feature is actually
needed. I will integrate it into
Something more controversial.
Why ATS at all? Why not encode them via FDs?
Funny you should say that, just when I've been thinking about
the same thing. That doesn't mean that ATS aren't a nice way
to describe some special cases of FDs, but my feeling is that
if ATS can't be encoded in FDs,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 01:26:18PM +, Stefan Wehr wrote:
Martin Sulzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote::
By possible you mean this extension won't break any
of the existing ATS inference results?
Yes, although we didn't go through all the proofs.
You have to be very careful otherwise
Stefan Wehr writes:
Niklas Broberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote::
On 2/10/06, Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:20:47PM +0100, Niklas Broberg wrote:
- when looking at the definition of MonadWriter the Monoid constraint
is not strictly necessary, and
Niklas Broberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote::
On 2/10/06, Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:20:47PM +0100, Niklas Broberg wrote:
- when looking at the definition of MonadWriter the Monoid constraint
is not strictly necessary, and none of the other mtl monads have
