On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz
Samuel Bronson wrote:
Aren't the warnings just about as usefull as failures? Anyway, you could always use the -Werrror flag for ghc...
In any case, I would not like to have to implement an entire typeclass at once... it would interfere with incremental development.
Hmm. I guess I'm doing a terrible job of asking my question. I don't want to implement the entire typeclass either. Just the part that my program actually uses. Why can't the fact that my program uses an unimplemented instance of a class be statically determined? Is there a theoretical reason it can't be done? Is it more convienient for compiler/specification writers this way? Is it just because that's the way its always been done?
After thinking about it for a while, I'm positive it would be a LOT of work to get that to work in general, if it is even possible. Even getting it to work in only specific, limited cases (such as within a module) would probably not be easy, since it is such an indirect kind of thing. It probably wouldn't be all that usefull anyway, either. In general, though, I think they don't implement stuff like this unless someone specifically wants to *use* it. -- Sam