Heinrich Apfelmus schrieb: > Sure, overloading is useful. But to avoid headache in a polymorphic > language, I'd prefer a principled approach to it. Hence, I'm convinced > that there should be only one mechanism for overloading in Haskell; > which is type classes at the moment. > > It appears that type direction name disambiguation can be implemented > with (automatically generated) type classes?
When thinking about how to make Haskell familiar to SQL programmers I also thought that a Haskell compiler might automatically generate a type class and according instances, such that an identifier like 'field' can be used for all record types that have a field with name 'field'. I'm sure Template Haskell programmers can achieve this already with todays GHC. In the meantime I'm happy with writing qualifications, type signatures and so on. I don't know why people like to avoid them at all costs. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
