| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| John Meacham | Oct 12, 2005 7:41 pm | |
| Philippa Cowderoy | Oct 12, 2005 7:55 pm | |
| John Meacham | Oct 12, 2005 8:16 pm | |
| Wolfgang Jeltsch | Oct 13, 2005 5:48 am | |
| John Meacham | Oct 13, 2005 6:03 am | |
| Malcolm Wallace | Oct 13, 2005 6:15 am | |
| Andres Loeh | Oct 13, 2005 6:23 am | |
| Malcolm Wallace | Oct 13, 2005 6:29 am | |
| John Meacham | Oct 13, 2005 6:37 am | |
| John Meacham | Oct 13, 2005 6:39 am | |
| Simon Peyton-Jones | Oct 13, 2005 7:02 am | |
| Benjamin Franksen | Oct 13, 2005 7:26 am | |
| Benjamin Franksen | Oct 13, 2005 7:33 am | |
| S.M.Kahrs | Oct 13, 2005 7:37 am | |
| John Meacham | Oct 13, 2005 8:32 am | |
| Simon Peyton-Jones | Oct 13, 2005 9:23 am | |
| Udo Stenzel | Oct 13, 2005 9:46 am | |
| Jan-Willem Maessen | Oct 13, 2005 9:58 am | |
| Paul Govereau | Oct 13, 2005 1:21 pm | |
| Jacques Carette | Oct 13, 2005 1:52 pm | |
| John Meacham | Oct 13, 2005 4:45 pm | |
| John Meacham | Oct 13, 2005 6:13 pm | |
| John Meacham | Oct 13, 2005 6:21 pm | |
| David Menendez | Oct 13, 2005 6:49 pm | |
| John Meacham | Oct 13, 2005 8:33 pm | |
| aj...@spamcop.net | Oct 13, 2005 11:25 pm | |
| Ashley Yakeley | Oct 14, 2005 6:20 am | |
| Ashley Yakeley | Oct 14, 2005 6:31 am | |
| Wolfgang Jeltsch | Oct 14, 2005 9:46 am | |
| Wolfgang Jeltsch | Oct 14, 2005 11:44 am | |
| Wolfgang Jeltsch | Oct 14, 2005 11:47 am | |
| Remi Turk | Oct 14, 2005 2:05 pm | |
| Udo Stenzel | Oct 15, 2005 6:15 am | |
| Ross Paterson | Oct 27, 2005 6:58 am | |
| Wolfgang Jeltsch | Oct 28, 2005 7:05 am |
| Subject: | [Haskell] PROPOSAL: class aliases | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | S.M.Kahrs (S.M....@kent.ac.uk) | |
| Date: | Oct 13, 2005 7:37:31 am | |
| List: | org.haskell.haskell | |
I've considered this before, but never done anything about it because superclasses are so close. Specifically, what is the difference between
(i) class (C a, D a) => CD a and (ii) class alias CD a = (C a, D a)
The difference is that (i) is, in a sense, generative - because you still have to declare a type to be an instance of CD even if it is one of both C and D.
That is not only inconvenient it can even create problems, for modular program development, as class instances always cross module boundaries [which is a wart]. So if there are two different modules in your project needing a type to be an instance of CD, you need to find a single place where to put that instance declaration.
Frankly, as long as there is no way to limit the scope of an instance it would probably even make sense to treat method-less classes as class synonyms anyway, i.e. ones that do not require instances. Though ways of limiting the scope of class instances is probably a change quite a few people would like to see, so such a change would inhibit a move in that direction in the future.
Stefan Kahrs





