<p>What's wrong with fun-deps? The associated type synonym syntax is prettier, but I didn't tknow that fun-deps were evil.</p>
<p>Do you have any links?</p>
<p>Take care,<br>
Antoine</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Aug 14, 2010 5:19 AM, "Andrew Coppin" <<a href="mailto:andrewcoppin@btinternet.com">andrewcoppin@btinternet.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>As I understand it, ATs were invented because FDs are "evil" and must never be used ever for any purpose. However, it doesn't seem to be possible to use ATs to do the same things that FDs can do.<br>
<br>
You can use ATs to write type functions, which take one type and return another type. This allows you to express type relationships in a very elegant way. However, what it does /not/ seem to allow you to do is express one-to-one relationships.<br>
<br>
For example, I'd like to be able to say that the next vector up from a Vector3 is a Vector4, and the next vector down is a Vector2. And I can say that. What I can't say is that the *only* next vector up is a Vector4. And thus, all my code is littered with ambiguous type warnings because although /currently/ there's only one class instance, somebody could come along some day and write another one.<br>
<br>
What am I missing?<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote></p>