[Haskell] Re: Parameterized Show

[oleg at pobox.com]

George Russel wrote:
> Graham Klyne wrote (snipped):
>  > I like the principle of parameterizing Show to allow for different
>  > encoding environments...
>
> I like the idea too, not just for Show but for any instances.  It seems to
> me that in general you should be able to combine the convenience of the
> Haskell type system with the power of Standard ML's structures and functors.

That can be -- and has been -- done:
	http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2004-August/014463.html

The running example includes an ORD class -- which is like the Ord
class but can be parameterized by a comparison function, so to
speak. That is, there may be several ORD instances for one type --
e.g., several ways to compare integers. Also, we do not need to carry
the discriminating label or dictionary all the time. Here's a snippet
from the test in the above article:

>                 let set1_empty = inst fs LR (undefined::Int)
>                     s1  = add 1 (add 0 set1_empty)
>                     rm1  = member 2 s1

>                     set3_empty = inst fs LE (undefined::Int)
>                     s3  = add 1 (add 0 set3_empty)
>                     r3  = member 2 s3

we parameterize the applicative, translucent functor ORD->SET
with two different integer-comparison functions, represented by labels
LR and LE. More meaningful names are certainly possible. After we
instantiated the functor, we do not need to mention the ORD parameter
ever again. 

Ken Shan's paper, the above and the following messages
	http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2004-September/014515.html

argue that Haskell already has the full power of Standard ML's
structures and functors (and not only generative but applicative
functors as well).