[ghc-steering-committee] Discussion on #155 Type Variable in Labmdas

[Iavor Diatchki]

Hello,

my concern is mainly with introducing multiple language constructs that do
almost the same thing and neither is better than the other as I think this
complicates the language unnecessarily.

Vladislav, I am not sure of the details of your example, but isn't it the
case that you could write it with scoped type variables if you wrote the
type down?   I agree that this can be a pain,
and as far as I see, this is the main use case for this feature---it
provides an easier way to call higher-rank functions, when you need to
refer to the type parameter in the polymorphic argument.

-Iavor






On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 2:48 AM Vladislav Zavialov <vlad.z.4096 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear GHC steering committee,
>
> > In the end, this proposal does not bring in much over ScopedTypeVariables
>
> Please note that comparing this feature to ScopedTypeVariables does
> not capture the full picture. There are two examples of code in the
> proposal, which I provided, that cannot be expressed using
> ScopedTypeVariables without a dummy Proxy argument.
>
> > With finite effort cycles, we may have more important fish to fry.
>
> I was planning to implement this proposal if it would be accepted.
>
> All the best,
> - Vladislav
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20190222/e17b5631/attachment.html>