
Honestly, I think "OVERLAPS" and "OVERLAPPED" are perfectly clear.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:52 AM, David Feuer
CAN-OVERLAP and CAN-BE-OVERLAPPED are nice and clear. A little long, perhaps.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Simon Peyton Jones
wrote: CAN_OVERLAP and CAN_BE_OVERLAPPED?
(instead of OVERLAPPING and OVERLAPPABLE)
Or CAN-OVERLAP, CAN-BE-OVERLAPPED
That’s ok with me if that’s what you all want!
Simon
From: Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Krzysztof Skrzetnicki Sent: 29 July 2014 16:56 To: Brandon Allbery Cc: Simon Peyton Jones; Andreas Abel; GHC users; Haskell Libraries (libraries@haskell.org); ghc-devs
Subject: Re: Overlapping and incoherent instances
How about CAN_OVERLAP?
-- Krzysztof
29-07-2014 15:40, "Brandon Allbery"
napisał(a): On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Andreas Abel
wrote: +1. I like Niklas' syntax better. Also OVERLAPPABLE is a horrible word, OVERLAPPING sound less formidable (even though it might be slightly less accurrate).
We already get "overlap ok" in instance-related type errors, so OVERLAP_OK wouldn't be particularly alien even if it doesn't quite fit in with existing pragmas.
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates
allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries