Simon Peyton Jones
writes: Relevant bits of the user manual: ...
Thanks Simon, IIRC when assoc type families/instances were first introduced, the type's parameters had to exactly match the class header. Reading through the manual there, it all sounds like it's got a bit what Wirth called 'baroque' [describing Modula]. The complexity in assoc type instances looks as though it's mostly to support type defaults. I guess the effect is that assoc types are now not exactly shorthand for stand-alone type families(?) [It might be worth a note in the manual section 7.7.3.2. to say that defaulting takes assoc types beyond type families? Or at least that you should mentally expand the instances and fill in from default(s) before thinking in terms of type families?] I rarely use assoc types, preferring stand-alone families (even if I think of them as associated).
Does anyone object?
Not me. AntC