On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:52:04PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
One idea: add (Maybe Type) fields to many TH syntax forms, where the type checker can record types. That's simple and direct.
A general question to TH aficionados: would this be useful? Remember that the type may not be fully precise, because it's the result of type-checking an as-yet-unspliced fragment.
I know almost nothing about views, but would they allow us to treat a datatype with (Maybe Type)s as either one with Types or one identical to what we currently have, at our choice? I think there are probably cases where we will have to lose type info when we manipulate datastructures in the second view, but overall I think this could work well. I don't relish the thought of having to sprinkle Nothings liberally over my code. Thanks Ian