29 Jan
2004
29 Jan
'04
10:26 a.m.
In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0401271448560.7939-100000@dark.darkweb.com>, Ben Rudiak-Gould <benrg@dark.darkweb.com> wrote:
Another extension I proposed is that the "name" of an implicit return value can include type parameters: thus %foo Int and %foo Char would be treated as though they had different names.
This bit doesn't seem very polymorphic-friendly? -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA