Hello,
On 8/22/06, John Meacham
I am not talking about type signatures, I am talking about having to annotate in the middle of a term.
f x y | x `member` map g freeVars y = ....
having to become
f x y | x `member` map g (freeVars y :: [Id]) = ....
There is no need to write such types... In this particular case the type of 'elem' indicates that the argument is a list. I don't think that a polymorphic 'map' function requires any more signatures than, say, '>>='. This certainly is not my experience when I use 'fmap'...
So, I am not saying renaming fmap to map is bad outright, I am just saying that the question is trickier than just the error message problem it was previously stated in terms of.
Do you have an example illustrating what is tricky about 'fmap'? As far as I understand 'map' used to be polymorphic, and later the distinction between 'map' and 'fmap' was specifically introduced to avoid the error messages that may confuse beginners. -Iavor