3 ms·

This would be absolutely amazing actually.

• platz 10y ago
  Wait till you see a rust-style datatype polymorphic over 4 parameters, and use that type over and over again. Haskell syntax may not make much sense coming from algol-inspired syntax, but to express its patterns it makes sense otherwise you end up with scala type lambda madness. Both purescript and agda have this
  • cfallin 10y ago
    I'm curious, what sorts of issues arise with complex types that Haskell-like syntax handles better? (Genuinely curious here -- I've written a little Haskell but am by no means an expert...) IMHO a Rust-style type `Option<HashMap<String, Vec<u32>>>` is a little noiser than the Haskell-style type `Maybe (Map String [Int])`, but not fatally so. Maybe there are much worse cases though?
    • ryani 10y ago
      The big one is `->`; all the 'template argument'-inspired syntaxes for this are terrible. Once you realize you want operators (and polymorphic operators, at that!) in your types, the `<u32>`syntax falls apart. I am not a fan of C#'s `Func<a,b>` at all.