[Haskell-cafe] Type synonyms considered harmful?

[amindfv at gmail.com]

Considering it doesnt give you any type safety, why not just write:

foo (red :: Double) (green :: Double) (blue :: Double) = undefined

Tom


El Jan 21, 2015, a las 10:32, Niklas Haas <haskell at nand.wakku.to> escribió:

>> Now we're definitely getting somewhere! I'm not to thrilled about the use
>> of string literals though. How about this?
>> 
>> {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators, DataKinds, RankNTypes #-}
>> type (l ∷ t) = t
>> 
>> foo :: forall red green blue. (red ∷ Double) -> (green ∷ Double) -> (blue ∷
>> Double) -> IO ()
>> 
>> We just need to patch hlint to make this the suggested style.
>> 
>> - jeremy
> 
> In fact, why even bother with the explicit forall? Default behavior is
> to universally quantify unused variable names, after all.
> 
> {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
> 
> type (l ∷ t) = t
> 
> foo :: (red ∷ Double) -> (green ∷ Double) -> (blue ∷ Double) -> IO ()
> 
> At this point, I think this is a syntax form we can surely all agree upon.
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe