Scoped Type Variables discussion forum [was: open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals]
carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Sun May 20 23:22:32 UTC 2018
indeed .. and we can reasonably say "lets deal with the bandaid in one go
by cleaning it up in the next standard"
so what would the next gen look like?
eg: fresh variables get the usual implicit forall at the front of the type,
and everything else either needs an explicit quantifier OR it refers to the
outer implicit quantified variable?
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com>
> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Anthony Clayden <
> anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> So the explanation I've seen for the current design is it was deliberately idiosyncratic, to minimise any disruption to existing code. Then I'm asking whether any of that code is still around? If not/if it's been re-factored to use ScopedTypeVariables, then any tweak to the design could have a freer hand.
> The reason there's no discussion about that is that nobody here has the
> ability to go hunt down every last piece of code in every public or private
> (think Standard Chartered, Facebook, etc.) code base and its current owner,
> and order them to "fix" it. You can't win that battle.
> brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine
> allbery.b at gmail.com
> ballbery at sinenomine.net
> unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad
> 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