3 ms·
Come on. I’m asking why they chose such different syntaxes for type annotations when it would not have been terribly challenging to keep them consistent. I even
by rco8786 4y ago
Come on. I’m asking why they chose such different syntaxes for type annotations when it would not have been terribly challenging to keep them consistent. I even gave examples.
Parens vs curly braces. Single : vs double ::.
- djur 4y agoThe first example isn't a type annotation, it's a type definition. The curly braces are consistent with the literal syntax for records. I agree that the use of double colons in record types seems inconsistent. I assume it resolves some ambiguity.
- jorkadeen 4y agoYou are spot on. Its because we reserve `:` for type and kind ascriptions. For example, `42 : Int` or `true : Bool`. But we also have `Bool : Type`, i.e. `true : Bool : Type`. While kinds are not that common in every day code, we aim for consistency with ascriptions rather than with records. Hence we had to use a different symbol in record types.
- michaelcampbell 4y ago> I even gave examples. Yes, of different things that look different, then asked why.