Hi, I know that it is frowned upon to discuss the merits of one proposal with hypothetical future proposals in mind, but I can’t resist: Am Montag, den 26.03.2018, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
3. Like Simon, I see the value in being able to say that everything that occurs in a pattern is a pattern -- that is, an output of the match.
I wonder if raising this current state to a principle blocks us from very useful future extensions. In particular, I expect that in the future we will want to be able to abstract pattern synonyms over values, and be able to do something like the following, given in infeasible syntax. pattern Nths n x <- ((!! ns) -> x) squareTenth :: [Int] -> Int squareTenth (Nths 10 x) = x*x or nths :: Int -> [a] -> a nths n (Nths n x) = x Ah, and of course view patterns already break the rule that “everything that occurs in a pattern is a pattern”! So somewhere down the line, I expect that patterns with have both INPUT and OUTPUT terms, and I will be able to specify both. In the same vain, I would like to be able to specify both INPUT and OUTPUT types now. And just in case this is a course of confusion: Nobody proposes to _bind_ universal variables. But Romand and me are missing a way of explicitly _instantiating_ universal variables. The proposal only discuss the former (which I agree is bogus), but not the latter. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/