10 Oct
2013
10 Oct
'13
9:24 a.m.
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 09.10.2013, 13:18 -0400 schrieb Edward Kmett:
'subst' may be a better name for gcoerce than it is for coerce, anyways, so there is plenty of room for discussion.
not a very constructive comment, but subst certainly is a better name, for, well, subst: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/type-equality-0.1.2/docs/Data-Type-Equali...
The pattern of type signatures for subst (= subst1) and subst2 suggests subst0 :: (a :=: b) -> a -> b Unfortunately, that's not a very intuitive name. Cheers, Bertram