Meng Wang wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thank you for starting the thread. We (Martin Sulzmann and me)
proposed a type class extension which allows modular extension of
superclasses (a complement of subclass extension). The idea has been
shown to be particularly useful in (but not limited to) encodings of
ge
Hi Brian,
Thank you for starting the thread. We (Martin Sulzmann and me) proposed a
type class extension which allows modular extension of superclasses (a
complement of subclass extension). The idea has been shown to be
particularly useful in (but not limited to) encodings of generic
programm
Brian Hulley wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
One of the great things about John's class-alias proposal is that
John worked out a lot of details and captured them in a web page,
rather than it getting buried in an email thread.
If you have ideas to refine his proposal, it'd be good to see if,
w
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
One of the great things about John's class-alias proposal is that
John worked out a lot of details and captured them in a web page,
rather than it getting buried in an email thread.
If you have ideas to refine his proposal, it'd be good to see if,
with him, you can come
al Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roberto
| Zunino
| Sent: 04 January 2007 22:44
| To: Brian Hulley
| Cc: Haskell-cafe
| Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Redefining superclass default methods in a
subclass
|
| Brian Hulley wrote:
| > Hi,
| > Looking at some
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Brian,
Thursday, January 4, 2007, 10:00:05 PM, you wrote:
deeper, the programmer is burdened more and more by the need to
cut-and-paste method definitions between instances because Haskell
doesn't allow a superclass (or ancestor class) method default to be
redefine
Hello Brian,
Thursday, January 4, 2007, 10:00:05 PM, you wrote:
> deeper, the programmer is burdened more and more by the need to
> cut-and-paste method definitions between instances because Haskell doesn't
> allow a superclass (or ancestor class) method default to be redefined in a
> subclass.
Brian Hulley wrote:
...allow a superclass (or ancestor class)
method default to be redefined in a subclass.
This has been proposed several times over the
years. I remember seeing Simon PJ propose it
within the past year or two, I think.
I personally have needed this on several
occasions. So I
Roberto Zunino wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
because Haskell doesn't allow a superclass (or ancestor class)
method default to be redefined in a subclass.
How one would write instances? Using your Monad class, does
instance Monad F where
return = ...
(>>=) = ...
automatically define
Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi,
Looking at some of the ideas in
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/The_Other_Prelude , it struck me that
the class system at the moment suffers from the problem that as
hierarchies get deeper, the programmer is burdened more and more by the
need to cut-and-paste method
Hi,
Looking at some of the ideas in
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/The_Other_Prelude , it struck me that the
class system at the moment suffers from the problem that as hierarchies get
deeper, the programmer is burdened more and more by the need to
cut-and-paste method definitions between
11 matches
Mail list logo
