[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal: Embrace Type in Type

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

Yes, existing code uses ’Type’, but it also uses ’*’ (GHC included) — i.e., this change is going to be a pain for some devs anyway. A pragma that couples the removal of ’*’ as a synonym for ’Type’ with the implicit importing of ’Type’ could encourage people to just apply both changes in one go.

Manuel

> Am 12.02.2018 um 02:04 schrieb Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Am 11. Februar 2018 01:43:03 EST schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak at justtesting.org>:
>> So, I think, we need a convenient and concise notation that doesn’t
>> require extra imports.
> 
> we have precedence for that: (->) could just as well be a name exported from Data.Function and the Prelude, with all the usual rules around it (qualifications, exports). But it is not, and rather parses as it's own thing. So far, nobody seems to bother about this exception from the rule.
> 
> But doing this to `Type` is annoying because existing code out there already used `Type`, in particular GHC.
> 
> Maybe if we can find a uncommonly used, short, descriptive name then making that available without imports is viable? Do we have any good ideas?
> 
> 
> Joachim
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee