4 ms·
Hey, I didn't say one was worse or better but merely suggested some arguments as to why one might dislike that signature. Clearly, as you demonstrate, the synt
by tel 11y ago
Hey, I didn't say one was worse or better but merely suggested some arguments as to why one might dislike that signature.
Clearly, as you demonstrate, the syntax described can be shortened—but it wasn't.
And by the definition being tied to the implementation I mean that it's not possible to write, e.g.
foo :: Type1
bar :: Type2
foo = ...
bar = ...
- masklinn 11y ago> Hey, I didn't say one was worse or better but merely suggested some arguments as to why one might dislike that signature. pekk asked what was wrong with the syntax. > Clearly, as you demonstrate, the syntax described can be shortened—but it wasn't. I didn't change the syntax in any way. > And by the definition being tied to the implementation I mean that it's not possible to write, e.g. 'k. Is that actually used? Global type inference I could see, but that seems odder.
- tel 11y agoFair enough. I conflated syntax with convention. It is used quite frequently, actually, e.g. in describing type classes.