29 Oct
2021
29 Oct
'21
5:17 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021, at 13:56, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
2. We would like some type arguments to be visible and some to be invisible. This is the nub of the motivation for #281.
Possibly a slight tangent, but if I were to replace every occurrence of "visible" with "required" and "invisible" with "optional", would that be a valid way of reading the discussion around visibility? For some reason the terminology has always been a bit confusing. Veering off a bit further, if the above substitution is valid, would visibility give us a formalism to deal with optional *value* arguments? It's always bothered me that OCaml has optional/named parameters but Haskell does not.