Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7038553
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 28, 20262026-05-28T01:40:59+00:00 2026-05-28T01:40:59+00:00

Is it possible to do the following: foo = bar where type A =

  • 0

Is it possible to do the following:

foo = bar
    where
        type A = (Some, Huge, Type, Sig)

        meh :: A -> (A, A) -> A

I only need to use this custom type inside the where clause, so it does not make sense to define it globally.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-28T01:41:00+00:00Added an answer on May 28, 2026 at 1:41 am

    This isn’t possible. Why not just define it above the function? You don’t have to export it from the module (just use an explicit export list).

    By the way, if you really do have a type that big, it’s probably a sign that you should factor it into smaller parts, especially if you have a lot of tuples as your example suggests; data-types would be more appropriate.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Consider the following: class A{ //data members void foo() { bar();//is this possible? or
Is it possible to use some mocking framework with Objectify? I've tried the following,
Is it possible to have something like the following: class C { public Foo
Is it somehow possible to use boost::object_pool<>::construct with non const references? The following snippet
Imagine the following REBOL code: foo: context [bar: 3] I now have a context
Possible Duplicate: Cannot use ‘this’ in member initializer? Any ideas why I get an
In the following code, object of type foo is created with a call to
Say, for example, I have the following array: files=( foo bar baz fizzle )
Why doesn't this change the initial object: public class Foo { Bar item =
For instance, say I have the following code. $foo = new bar(); And an

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.