Sadly, that means someone reading through the whole Report and fixing a lot of things. I mean, it still doesn't even say how typeclasses work, it just says "the obvious extension to H-M" or something like that.
> And since taking the report over-literally will lead you quickly to a syntax error, I think GHC doesn't need engage a lawyer.
I believe that sarcasm is misplaced here, for two reasons:
1) It's unfriendly.
2) It's shooting down an argument without offering counter-arguments.
I don't mean to imply that this was an intentional attack or anything,
but I believe it should be acknowledged as a mistake.
Back to lurking and kind regards,
Jo
P.S.:
I do believe he does have a valid point here. Even if the Report is
"eventually precise enough", ambiguities like this take time and mental
effort to sort out that would be better spend on learning or tool
implementing or whatever the person is trying to achieve by reading the
Report.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list -- haskell-cafe@haskell.org
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
--