12 May
2005
12 May
'05
8:02 p.m.
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? Curious, Greg Buchholz