Neil Mitchell wrote: >> But IMO FlexibleInstances are a noncontroversial extension, and they >> are supported by most compilers. > > Alas but not Yhc - which will break our goal of being self-compiling > at some stage. How much work is it to move to not requiring this? If > that could be done, then this patch will definately be applied. >
Getting rid of the requirement for FlexibleInstances should not be to hard (nor should adding support for them to Yhc). But even if I work around that, this patch relies quite havilly on the mtl, which uses multi parameter type classes and functional dependencies. Those might be a bigger problem. Hoever the mtl was already used in other parts of the compiler...
Twan _______________________________________________ Yhc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/yhc
