Re: Overlapping, undecidable, incoherent -- or worse?

that is not the case with "-fallow-undecidable-instances" ... as far as I understand it , ghc never considers the dependancies when selecting an instance. If you don't think so you will need to show me an example where it clearly does... as I haven't seen one yet (but just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean its not possible),,, IMHO, things should either stay as they are (only instance heads supported) or it should switch to full Prolog style backtracking. Given who I mean, given two instances like: instance a b c instance d e f there is no way to tell between them... if you said choose a in preferenc 'a' would be chosen all the time. Keean.

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:34:18PM +0100, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
that is not the case with "-fallow-undecidable-instances" ... as far as I understand it , ghc never considers the dependancies when selecting an instance. If you don't think so you will need to show me an example where it clearly does... as I haven't seen one yet (but just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean its not possible),,,
Am I to understand you're asserting that GHC "undecidable-instances" are in fact decidable? Hugs explicitly documents its type system as being undecidable, and I'd presumed this was the 'make GHC behave that way too' flag.
I mean, given two instances like:
instance a b c instance d e f
there is no way to tell between them... if you said choose a in preferenc 'a' would be chosen all the time.
If you were to indicate one instance declaration was preferred, and both _could otherwise yield a suitable instance_, then that would be prefered. (Though if one were to 'search' in the preference order of the rules, one wouldn't need to find more than one in any event.)
participants (2)
-
Alex Ferguson
-
MR K P SCHUPKE