A Pointless Library Proposal

[Russell O\'Connor]

Samuel Bronson <naesten <at> gmail.com> writes:

> On 10/24/06, Russell O'Connor <roconnor <at> theorem.ca> wrote:
> > Why have a function body at all?  Shouldn't the type signature be sufficent?
> 
> Remember that type signatures need not be adjacent to function
> definitions. Now ponder what would happen if you forgot to define a
> function. Have a clue why it isn't sufficient now?

If you turn on -Wall in GHC, you would get a warning that your pattern coverage
is incomplete.  We should make it so that if the pattern coverage is incomplete
and there is no function body, then that is an error.