On 8/22/06, Bulat Ziganshin
what i propose is not full replacement of existing syntax - quite the contrary it is just a syntax sugar for most frequent cases of using classes in function signatures. the key idea is that in most cases we use only one type class for each type variable, and the same type for each occurrence of type class in the type:
(+) :: Num -> Num -> Num
[...]
so, while this proposal is rather minor, i think that it is Good thing
I disagree. As a new learner to Haskell, I already have a hard time keeping Constructors, Types, and Classes straight. I know what they all are and what they all do, but sometimes I really have to think hard to remember which is which in a piece of code. What helps my understanding is that each has a specific place in the type signature (which I guess includes 'nowhere' regarding constructors). Being able to put Classes where Types go would just serve to muddle that understanding. Bryan Burgers