Re: [Haskell-cafe] an idea for modifiyng data/newtype syntax: use `::=` instead of `=`

I saw this as an entertaining "If I could wish..." survey, and don't think anybody is thinking seriously to implement it. If you asked me a few years ago, I'd say yes, go ahead. The benefit/cost rate is far too small, if any. As for the 'beginner-friendly' reason for change, while learning Haskell, it took me half an hour of confusion, and another half an hour of anger of how 'stupid' Haskell is. :-) But it is interesting to see how many people responded to this. Obviously a touchy thing.

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] an idea for modifiyng data/newtype syntax: use `::=` instead of `=` From: Oliver Charles To: Geraldus , Hilco Wijbenga , Haskell Cafe Date: 08/08/15 21:14

I hate to come across as a party-pooper, but do we really think it's realistic that any of these changes will be made? I understand that there may be benefits, but they don't outweigh the cost of breaking almost all existing code. The idea of opting in to this with pragmas just doesn't seem worth it, and further fragments the language, ultimately reducing readability when I pick up another author's code.

/ocharles/

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 7:29 PM Geraldus mailto:heraldhoi@gmail.com> wrote:

type -> alias data -> data newtype -> newalias or newdata?

`type` keyword was really confusing for me at the beginning, also this confusion brought another one about `newtype` keyword.

сб, 8 авг. 2015 г. в 22:28, Hilco Wijbenga mailto:hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com>:

On 8 August 2015 at 08:03, Daniel Trstenjak mailto:daniel.trstenjak@gmail.com> wrote: >> type Name = String >> data Date = Date Int Int Int > > if we're at it ;), then please change it to: > > alias Name = String > type Date = Date Int Int Int

I wholeheartedly agree with replacing the current "type" with "alias", the current "type" is just flat out wrong: it does *not* create a type. This should be very simple to do too: introduce "alias" as a new keyword and deprecate "type". No existing code would be affected.

I'm on the fence about "type" instead of "data", though. "data" clearly conveys the meaning that we are talking about data only, not functions on that data (as in OOP). (Well, data constructors are functions too.) Then again, as soon as you add "deriving", you *are* defining functions on that data. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe