Summarize of Why do I have to specify (Monad m) here again?

Thanks for all the feedback. It did help me a lot. Now I know that if there is something left to discuss the topic should be: Would it make sense to specify partial type declarations ? I don't need an answer right now. Marc

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:17:34 +0400, Marc Weber
Thanks for all the feedback. It did help me a lot.
Now I know that if there is something left to discuss the topic should be: Would it make sense to specify partial type declarations ? I don't need an answer right now.
Hi Marc, no, it wouldn't. It would make sense to draw the arrow in the class definition in the opposite direction. It does not point in the direction it should in the class case. David

David Tolpin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:17:34 +0400, Marc Weber
wrote: Would it make sense to specify partial type declarations ? I don't need an answer right now.
no, it wouldn't.
I think it would, and it seems there are others. See e.g. http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell%40haskell.org/msg10677.html There is even a hack that allows you to do it in Haskell98, see http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/partial-signatures.lhs (hey, google rulez!) Cheers Ben
participants (3)
-
Benjamin Franksen
-
David Tolpin
-
Marc Weber