On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
Yes, sometimes it is neccerary to give an explicit type. But in so many cases, type inference works fine no? What I usually do, is use the GHCi t: command, copy/paste that in my code, and then make the type signature more specific if it has to be. It's often funny to see how generic the code really is :)
Indeed.
It's a problem in Haskell that there are no unique parameter names, due to pattern matching.
Yes, but it would be nice to attach some "parameter-comment" to the types no? Now a lot of documentation is written in the style "the 7th parameter is...". Not very user friendly :)
It's already possible to write asTypeOf :: a {- ^ the input value to be passed through -} -> a {- ^ the value is ignored, but the type is unified with the first parameter -} -> a {- ^ the value of the first parameter -}