Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Requiring both Carrier & Member constraints is inconvenient #212

Closed
robrix opened this issue Sep 21, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #217
Closed

Requiring both Carrier & Member constraints is inconvenient #212

robrix opened this issue Sep 21, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #217
Assignees
@robrix
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Milestone
1.0

Comments

@robrix
Copy link
Collaborator

robrix commented Sep 21, 2019

Having to have both Carrier and Member constraints is an unnecessary wrinkle. @lexi-lambda pointed out some possibilities for unifying them—or at least, providing a unified interface—involving using a type family for a Carrier’s signature type instead of a functional dependency.
@robrix robrix added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 21, 2019
@robrix robrix mentioned this issue Sep 21, 2019
Closed
@robrix robrix self-assigned this Sep 23, 2019
@robrix robrix mentioned this issue Sep 23, 2019
Merged
6 tasks
@robrix robrix added this to the 0.6 milestone Sep 23, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@robrix robrix

Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.0
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Simpler constraints fused-effects/fused-effects
1 participant
@robrix