Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 16:45 schrieb Henning Thielemann:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Jules Bean wrote:
Hint: Don't put signatures on functions, then. Instead, let the compiler infer the type for you! If you want to know what the type is, ask GHCi with :info. And if you think it is helpful documentation, you can copy-paste the correct signature from ghci into your source code!
There should always be signatures.
I do almost unrestrictedly agree! Deciphering code without type signatures is -- except in fairly trivial cases -- always a nuisance, and if the author chose short names instead of telling ones, it is positively disgusting! A type signature usually gives you a quick idea of what's going on even before you read much of the code (though admittedly a type signature f :: a -> a -> a -> b doesn't) and isn't much work to add. Maybe if one is verrrry familiar with the language things are different, but until you reach that familiarity you are grateful for any help. One might replace type signatures with comments, of course, and so convey better information, but that is more work, hence we poor ignorants will settle for signatures. Humbly, Daniel Fischer