| Perhaps already as part of such a feedback round/bikeshedding
| opportunity, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who finds the name
| "TypeHoles" confusing, since as far as I understand, the extension
| enables holes in *expressions*, not types... I would personally find
| something like TypedHoles (note the added d) or ExpressionHoles or
| something similar more intuitive.
I certainly don't mind adding "TypedHoles" as a synonym, use it in the user manual, and deprecate TypeHoles (and remove it later). If (a) no one objects and (b) someone wants to send a patch.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of
| Dominique Devriese
| Sent: 13 January 2014 12:56
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Enable TypeHoles by default?
|
| Perhaps already as part of such a feedback round/bikeshedding
| opportunity, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who finds the name
| "TypeHoles" confusing, since as far as I understand, the extension
| enables holes in *expressions*, not types... I would personally find
| something like TypedHoles (note the added d) or ExpressionHoles or
| something similar more intuitive. Not that I have strong feelings about
| this, though... Note that I haven't actually tried the extension yet,
| but from the description, it seems like a very nice addition to GHC, so
| kudos to whoever did the work...
|
| Regards,
| Dominique
|
| 2014/1/13 Richard Eisenberg