On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:00, Brent Yorgey wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:29:21PM -0700, J. Garrett Morris wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:<br>
> > What should the GHCi command be *called*?<br>
><br>
> :simplify or :simplifytype. In GHCi at the moment, you could abbreviate<br>
> that as short as :si.<br>
<br>
</div>IMO Simon's suggestion of something like :normalizetype or :normalize<br>
or :normtype would be even better -- you could abbreviate it as just<br>
:n . It is also more accurate; the correct term for what the command<br>
should do is in fact "normalize", and it may not in fact end up making<br>
the type any simpler.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I like :normalize (without "type" since we don't need to distinguish it from term normalization), and the shorthand :n is perfect. And if you prefer :normalise, the location-agnostic :normtype, or other colors that start with :n, I don't mind, because I'll almost never type the whole thing. ;)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Sean</div></div>