13 Aug
2019
13 Aug
'19
6:56 p.m.
The point is to create a monomorphic variant [...]
But we already have at least two monomorphic variants to express this with Haskell's concise native syntax and vocabulary which has by design a preferential treatment of lists (it was considered even more important than type-sigs so that we got the `:` cons operator for lists and the `::` for type-sig annotations) -- so let's not try to fight Haskell's core idioms by hiding them behind some trivial additional redundant synonyms! I still fail to see the actual *technical* problem being solved by the original proposal asking to add yet another, wordy way to construct single-item-lists.