Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:46:29 +0100 (MET), Johannes Waldmann <joe@isun.informatik.uni-leipzig.de> pisze:
Yes, I see that. However I think that adding type signatures is good programming practice anyway, and I wouldn't mind if a future Haskell required me to do some explicit typing (for top-level definitions, say).
Types of top-level definitions are not enough when every identifier can have many completely unrelated types, and types of subexpressions are derived both from their contents and context.
What are the ergonomic benefits of allowing the programmer to omit type declarations? It does invite sloppy programming, no? And does it make life easier or harder for the compiler (writer)?
Adding overloading like in C++ certainly it makes life harder for the compiler writer. IMHO it does not work at all in a language with HM type system when the type inference does not proceed inside-out only. -- __("< Marcin Kowalczyk * qrczak@knm.org.pl http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/ \__/ ^^ SYGNATURA ZASTÊPCZA QRCZAK