iavor.diatchki at gmail.com
Sun Jan 27 03:54:26 CET 2013
I think that it'd be really useful to be able to just declare a `kind`
without having to promote a datatype.
When we discussed this last time (summarized by the link Pedro sent, I
think) it came up that it might be nice to also
have kind synonyms, which would be analogous to type synonyms, but one
level up. The "natural" syntax for that would be to have a "type kind"
declaration, but this seems a bit confusing...
John, did you implement kind synonyms in jhc, and if so what syntax did you
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM, John Meacham <john at repetae.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk>wrote:
>> GHC implements data kinds by promoting data declarations of a certain
>> restricted form, but I wonder if it would be better to have a special
>> syntax for kind definitions, say
>> data kind Nat = Zero | Succ Nat
> This is exactly the syntax jhc uses for user defined kinds.
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users