RE: Associated types in 6.6?
| I see that associated types is already in CVS: | | http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cvs.all/19423/match=ass ociated | | Will it be in 6.6? I hope so but I am not sure. The trick lies in coming up with a suitable typed intermediate representation for the program -- System F isn't enough. Manuel Chakravarty and Martin Sulzmann and I have been working on an idea, but it's not yet clear whether we'll have it worked out and implemented at the same time as 6.6. As ever, we tend to work harder on things that folk appear to want; so anyone who is keen on associated types, do sing out and describe your application a bit. Simon
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:15:00AM -0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I hope so but I am not sure. The trick lies in coming up with a suitable typed intermediate representation for the program -- System F isn't enough. Manuel Chakravarty and Martin Sulzmann and I have been working on an idea, but it's not yet clear whether we'll have it worked out and implemented at the same time as 6.6.
I remember there was talk of moving ghc to a henk-based system similar to the one used in jhc, I was curious if that was still a possibility? John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The trick lies in coming up with a suitable typed intermediate representation for the program -- System F isn't enough.
Is that because GHC's TIL is not exactly System F?
As ever, we tend to work harder on things that folk appear to want;
Unrelated question: will "boxy" types allow forall-quantified types in instance declarations?
so anyone who is keen on associated types, do sing out and describe your application a bit.
If yes, I'll clean-up and send out some code showing what I think would be a good use. Jim
participants (3)
-
Jim Apple -
John Meacham -
Simon Peyton-Jones