On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 11:29 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Jonathan Cast wrote:
Usually `when no ambiguity can arise', no? Plenty of mathematical practice rests on imprecision and the expectation that the human reader will understand what you mean. Haskell has to be understandable by the machine (which is less forgiving, but also more reasonable!) as well.
Yes, and name overloading is decidable for machines as well, as the feature exists in numerous languages,
Do those languages have full HDM type inference? Do they have principle types? Are their principle types actually usable from the programmer's perspective? Those are the *bare minimum* requirements.
and from time to time, we hear talk of the feature for Haskell, as well.
I here jabbering all the time. I try to tune most of it out.
Unless you, say, enjoy having type inference or something.
Name overloading and type inference are not incompatible -- the issue has been discussed here before,
I believe the last time it was brought up, the proposal was that type inference should fail on certain typeable terms. That doesn't count. jcc