On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:00, Brent Yorgey wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:29:21PM -0700, J. Garrett Morris wrote:<br>


&gt; On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; What should the GHCi command be *called*?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; :simplify or :simplifytype.  In GHCi at the moment, you could abbreviate<br>
&gt; that as short as :si.<br>
<br>
</div>IMO Simon&#39;s suggestion of something like :normalizetype or :normalize<br>
or :normtype would be even better -- you could abbreviate it as just<br>
:n .  It is also more accurate; the correct term for what the command<br>
should do is in fact &quot;normalize&quot;, and it may not in fact end up making<br>
the type any simpler.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I like :normalize (without &quot;type&quot; since we don&#39;t need to distinguish it from term normalization), and the shorthand :n is perfect. And if you prefer :normalise, the location-agnostic :normtype, or other colors that start with :n, I don&#39;t mind, because I&#39;ll almost never type the whole thing. ;)</div>

<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Sean</div></div>