I just showed the type of ($) to my boss in our company chat who has been using Haskell for 14 years. He'd played with Haskell prior to that, but 14 years ago is when he started postgrad and teaching Haskell. Here's what he said:

...what? what does that do?

He's been using Haskell in production for the last 5 years as well, I think. Please simplify the type unless a pragma specific to levity is turned on. As it happens, I like the name levity better than runtimerep, but neither solve any pedagogical issues. YMMV. On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

On 02/05/2016 08:05 PM, Christopher Allen wrote:

...

Changing the name doesn't fix the issue. The issue is the noise and the referent, not the referrer. There's a habit of over-focusing on names in programming communities. I think it'd be a mistake to do that here and risk missing the point.

I think you're being a bit harsh, but I *do* think you're essentially right. Beginners will have no idea what most the that means, so... *yes* the type *will* need to be simplified for display purposes. (Unless, of course, you opt-in to full signatures.)

Regards,

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

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