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 <trebla@vex.net> wrote:
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   |   Facebook   |   LinkedIn(spammy, so I often miss messages here)   |   Github