Re: Proposal: Add ‘type f ~> g = forall a. f a -> g a’

[wren romano]

I agree too. I use the name (~>) whenever I have some profunctor-like
type variable. Putting it in a library would be like defining "x" or
"a" in a library. Certainly natural transformations are helpful to
have a library around, but they should be given a better name.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:48 PM, John Wiegley <johnw at newartisans.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "EM" == Eric Mertens <emertens at gmail.com> writes:
>
> EM> I'd prefer that we didn't prescribe a meaning to this generally useful
> EM> type operator. This type synonym is very easy to define in any module
> EM> where it's appropriate.
>
> I agree. Taking "~>" for natural transformations seems too specific.
>
> --
> John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
> http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



-- 
Live well,
~wren