Java-like

[Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk]

Bulat Ziganshin <bulatz at HotPOP.com> writes:

> that i want to say is what the first variant allows to define type of
> 'x' in such way that the only Show-specific operations are allowed,

Why? A class is not a type. Haskell has no non-trivial subtyping.
If it's always a string, then it can be treated as a string. Haskell
is not Java and can't be coerced to Java without a major redesign of
the type system.

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak at knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/