Hello,
I think that if we want something along those lines, we should consider a
more general construct that allows declarations to scope over other
declarations (like SML's `local` construct). It would be quite arbitrary
to restrict this only to instances.
-Iavor
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Max Bolingbroke wrote: You could probably get away with just using two "where" clauses: instance Foo a where
bar = ...
where
auxilliary = ... On 28 April 2013 18:42, Edward Kmett Makes sense. I'm not sure what a good syntactic story would be for that
feature though. Just writing down member names that aren't in the class
seems to be too brittle and error prone, and new keywords seems uglier than
the current situation. Sent from my iPad On Apr 28, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Doug McIlroy Not always. For example, you can't mess with the declaration
of a standard class, such as Num. On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Edward Kmett You can always put those helper functions in the class and then just
not
export them from the module. On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Doug McIlroy Is there any strong reason why the where clause in an instance
declaration cannot declare anything other than class
operators? If not, I suggest relaxing the restriction. It is not unusual for declarations of class operators to
refer to special auxiliary functions. Under current rules
such functions have to be declared outside the scope in
which they are used. Doug McIlroy _______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime _______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime