On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Dan Doel
<dan.doel@gmail.com> wrote:
(Sorry if you get this twice, Ertugrul; and if I reply to top. I'm
stuck with the gmail interface and I'm not used to it.)
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez <
es@ertes.de> wrote:
> I don't see any problem with this. Although I usually have a bottom-up
> approach, so I don't do this too often, it doesn't hurt, when I have to.
Whenever I program in Haskell, I miss Agda's editing features, where I
can write:
foo : Signature
foo x y z = ?
Then compile the file. The ? stands in for a term of any type, and
becomes a 'hole' in my code. The editing environment will then tell me
what type of term I have to fill into the hole, and give me
information on what is available in the scope. Then I can write:
You can simulate that with a type class. The "no instance" error substitutes for the "term".
class Hole obj where hole :: obj
foo :: Blah
foo x y z = hole
"No instance for type Blah"
Presumably, you wouldn't want to make instances. I use a similar construct for monic and epic functions, since the natural ones tend to be unique enough.