Re: Proposal: Add ‘type f ~> g = forall a. f a -> g a’

I agree too. I use the name (~>) whenever I have some profunctor-like type variable. Putting it in a library would be like defining "x" or "a" in a library. Certainly natural transformations are helpful to have a library around, but they should be given a better name. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:48 PM, John Wiegley wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

"EM" == Eric Mertens writes:

EM> I'd prefer that we didn't prescribe a meaning to this generally useful EM> type operator. This type synonym is very easy to define in any module EM> where it's appropriate.

I agree. Taking "~>" for natural transformations seems too specific.

-- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2 _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

-- Live well, ~wren