[Joker_vD]

> Module Typeclasses should keep typeclasses from happening everywhere (looking at you Haskell) while still allowing them to be used for more than equality.

I was under impression that Haskell's typeclasses plus a couple of most common extensions minus the namespace pollution are pretty much equivalent to ML modules+functors, so could you elaborate how exactly that should work?

[hajile]

Yes and no. They can do the same thing, but with varying amounts of effort. SML has what is essentially a hard coded typeclass for equality with special syntax for it as well (two single quotes instead of one). There can also be issues creating and overloading operators. There's still ongoing discussion about modular typeclasses for SuccessorML

Here's some info if you're interested.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/papers/mtc/short.pdf

[Joker_vD]

Yeah... not only the fact that SML modules always left an impression of arbitrariness (SML97 and OCaml have some subtle semantic differences and neither of those choices seem to be inherently wrong), but also the sheer complexity of their theory compared to Hindley-Milner... seems that there just has to be a better way.