Hello,

  You should be able to use fundeps to do exactly what you describe below.

  Can you make a relatively small self-contained example which exemplifies the ugliness you see?

-Jeff


haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org wrote on 12/07/2007 11:24:35 AM:

>
> I have some type-level sets using fundeps working whereby equality and
> membership etc are predicate functions. This seems to leads to an explosion
> of ugly code, with `If' class constraints etc getting out of hand -- I want
> to treat these as relations instead so providing the definition describes
> everything that is 'in' and nothing that is 'out'. I've been using Oleg's
> paper on lightweight static resources [1] as a template for this. I want to
> do something like this (supposing I have an EQ relation, (:::) for consing):
>        
> class Member x y
> instance EQ x y      => Member x (y:::ys)
> instance Member x ys => Member x (y:::ys)
>        
> But I can certainly see why this isn't possible (It's the equivalent of
> pattern-matching on the constraints I suppose). Do type families provide a
> way to do this kind of thing or do I need a different strategy altogether,
> involving GADTs or whatever?
>        
> Thanks,
>        
> [1] http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/resource-aware-prog/tfp.pdf
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/fundeps-and-
> overlapping-undecidable-instances-tf4962996.html#a14215583
> Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

---

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any
unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this
e-mail is strictly forbidden.