Re: Is there already a list class?

On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:54:57AM +0000, Aaron Denney wrote:

On 2007-01-10, David Roundy wrote:

...

(But I don't like functional dependencies, because they confuse me, and hope that associated types end up making it into Haskell'...)

Huh. I don't understand associated types, and functional dependencies seem fairly transparent, if perhaps low-level to me.

The trouble is that fundeps *seem* transparent, but they aren't (at least, according to implementors). ATs, once you have heard about them, actually are simple, I believe. It's the restrictions on fundeps to allow termination and decideability that make them confusing... -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net