Defaults for superclass methods
john at repetae.net
Tue Apr 11 06:50:04 EDT 2006
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:35:09AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 11 April 2006 11:08, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:03:22AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> This is a rather useful extension, and as far as I can tell it
> >> doesn't have a ticket yet:
> >> http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/libraries/2005-March/003494.html
> >> should I create a ticket? Is there any reason it might be hard to
> >> implement?
> > There are a range of proposals, but none of them are implemented.
> > Wouldn't that rule them out for Haskell'?
> If it's not clear which is the right way to go, then yes I guess that
> does rule it out. Could you summarise the proposals? If there was a
> clear winner, and it was easy enough to implement, perhaps we can knock
> up a prototype in time.
As I recall, this was brought up a few times during the class alias
discussion and there were good technical reasons why it would be
tricky to define a sane semantics for it. as in, it's harder than it first
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
More information about the Haskell-prime