-1.

I'm hoping we don't get more deeply invested in the syntactic change in GHC 7.6 that removed the possibility of symbolic type variables ("~>", "*", "+", etc). I had a new job and wasn't paying attention when SPJ polled the community. From my perspective, the loss has much greater scope than the gain for type level naturals. I'd like to keep the door open to the possibility of bringing back the old notation with the help of a language pragma. It would take a few of us to draft a proposal addressing details.

Not at all meaning to start a syntax debate on this thread. Just an explanation of my -1 for the topic at hand.

- Conal

-- Conal

On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:

As part of the discussion about Typeable, GHC 7.8 is going to include a Data.Type.Equality module that provides a polykinded type equality data type.

I'd like to propose that we rename this type to (==) rather than the (:=:) it was developed under.

We are already using (+), (-), (*), etc. at the type level in type-nats, so it would seem to fit the surrounding convention.

I've done the work of preparing a patch, visible here:

https://github.com/ekmett/packages-base/commit/fb47f8368ad3d40fdd79bdeec334c0554fb17110

Thoughts?

Normally, I'd let this run the usual 2 week course, but we're getting down to the wire for 7.8's release. Once 7.8 ships, we'd basically be stuck with the current name forever.

Discussion Period: 1 week

-Edward Kmett

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries