it became harder to tell types from value-level expressions at a glance
Font differences seem like a more natural way to distinguish those.
Do you prefer this?
id :: domain ~ codomain => domain -> codomain ...
Lol no.
Maybe a good solution would be, rather than longer names, some automated
way for a user to ask whether a type variable like 'a' carries any
semantics, or is truly free to be anything.
If I'm learning a library from the top down, it's not (as far as I can
remember) a problem. But sometimes one library uses a single function
buried deep in another library. In those situations, the current status-quo
recipe, "just flail around (reading documentation or manually unifying
types) until you get it," seems improvable.
But if y'all gurus don't think it's a big deal, I'll take your word for it,
and wait for those flailings to become instinctual.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Albert Y. C. Lai
On 2017-08-10 06:29 PM, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
Haskellers tend to use uninformative single-letter type variables. A
Do you prefer this?
id :: domain ~ codomain => domain -> codomain id argument = return_value where return_value = argument
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-- Jeff Brown | Jeffrey Benjamin Brown Website https://msu.edu/~brown202/ | Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mejeff.younotjeff | LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreybenjaminbrown(spammy, so I often miss messages here) | Github https://github.com/jeffreybenjaminbrown