[ghc-steering-committee] TypeApplications for Overloaded Literals (#129), Recommendation: accept

[Iavor Diatchki]

I am not convinced, if that's the sole motivation.  By that reasoning you
might expect that `(-5) @Int` or `(5+1) @Int` would also work, but they
wouldn't.



On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 8:47 AM Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Sonntag, den 06.05.2018, 15:42 +0000 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
> > Is there a reason why we should write `5 @Int` as opposed to `5 :: Int`?
>
> Because we can. Or rather, we should can, because
>
>    Prelude> :t 5
>    5 :: Num t => t
>    Prelude> :t 5 @Double
>    <interactive>:1:1: error:
>        • Cannot apply expression of type ‘t0’
>          to a visible type argument ‘Double’
>        • In the expression: 5 @Double
>
> is confusing and inconsistent with the user’s expectation after
> learning about when they can use ExplicitTypeApplications (unless one
> knows about the syntactic sugar involved.)
>
> > Also, there appears to be a typo in the spec, the part which specifies
> translations for integers (1 turned into 0?)
>
> thanks, fixed.
>
>
> (BTW, all of you are owners of the repository and should have the
> necessary permissions to edit pull requests directly.)
>
> Cheers,
> Joachim
>
> --
> Joachim Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20180506/4823d555/attachment.html>