Re: [Haskell-cafe] Type synonyms considered harmful?

Because that wouldn't show up in haddock or :t. On 22 January 2015 at 01:23, wrote:

Considering it doesnt give you any type safety, why not just write:

foo (red :: Double) (green :: Double) (blue :: Double) = undefined

Tom

El Jan 21, 2015, a las 10:32, Niklas Haas escribió:

...

...

Now we're definitely getting somewhere! I'm not to thrilled about the use of string literals though. How about this?

{-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators, DataKinds, RankNTypes #-} type (l ∷ t) = t

foo :: forall red green blue. (red ∷ Double) -> (green ∷ Double) -> (blue ∷ Double) -> IO ()

We just need to patch hlint to make this the suggested style.

- jeremy

In fact, why even bother with the explicit forall? Default behavior is to universally quantify unused variable names, after all.

{-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}

type (l ∷ t) = t

foo :: (red ∷ Double) -> (green ∷ Double) -> (blue ∷ Double) -> IO ()

At this point, I think this is a syntax form we can surely all agree upon. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

---

Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe