31 Aug
2008
31 Aug
'08
11:21 p.m.
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 16:08 -0700, Ryan Ingram wrote:
In particular I do NOT want each function in its own typeclass; the previous post saying:
foo x = map (bar x) should be rejected as ambiguous without a type signature somewhere
What type signature do you propose? It seems as if you're proposing that doubleSet :: Set.Set Int -> Set.Set Int doubleSet = map (*2) doubleList :: [Int] -> [Int] doubleList :: map (*2) work, but that you not be allowed to notice that the definitions are identical and substitute double = map (*2) for both definitions. Sorry, but I use Haskell specifically because I do *not* want to use C ++. jcc