[Haskell-cafe] Type synonyms considered harmful?

[Christopher Done]

That's pretty but a pain to type.

On 21 January 2015 at 16:32, Niklas Haas <haskell at nand.wakku.to> wrote:

> > Now we're definitely getting somewhere! I'm not to thrilled about the use
> > of string literals though. How about this?
> >
> > {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators, DataKinds, RankNTypes #-}
> > type (l ∷ t) = t
> >
> > foo :: forall red green blue. (red ∷ Double) -> (green ∷ Double) ->
> (blue ∷
> > Double) -> IO ()
> >
> > We just need to patch hlint to make this the suggested style.
> >
> > - jeremy
>
> In fact, why even bother with the explicit forall? Default behavior is
> to universally quantify unused variable names, after all.
>
> {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
>
> type (l ∷ t) = t
>
> foo :: (red ∷ Double) -> (green ∷ Double) -> (blue ∷ Double) -> IO ()
>
> At this point, I think this is a syntax form we can surely all agree upon.
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20150121/357ecca3/attachment.html>