I don't think it's a good idea to create a dumbed down Prelude and existing resources not covering what programmers need to know in order to actually use Haskell as everyone else uses it is much of the reason I had to write a book to begin with. This type isn't just noise for beginners, it's noise for practitioners too. Consider what I said earlier about a 15 year user of Haskell finding the type confusing and irrelevant.

There are a couple good proposals for addressing levity polymorphism leaking into the type. I think the one Ben Gamari had in mind that I thought would be fine is waiting for a patch.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak@justtesting.org> wrote:
> Ben Gamari <ben@smart-cactus.org>:
> builds. In effect the message to users would be,
>
>    "yes, unboxed types exist and they are now on sound theoretical
>    footing, but they are still largely an implementation detail, just as
>    they have always been. If you want to use them you need to know
>    where to look."
>
> Perhaps this can be revisited at some point in the future when we have a
> better story for a beginner's Prelude but for now I'm not sure we want
> to subject everyone to these new types.
>
> Anyways, this is just my two cents. It would be nice to hear what others
> think.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Manuel

_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs



--
Chris Allen
Currently working on http://haskellbook.com