[Haskell-cafe] Bikeshedding request for GHCi's :type

[Carter Schonwald]

I'm inclined to agree with Richard on this.  Flag based behavior pushes more
Complexity into the meaning of a command. Zero config is best config, and
thusly having easy way to distinguish these (using the power of names!) is
something I personally agree with

Perhaps just as importantly: ~/.ghci files are a thing, so it'd be easy for
folks to define custom short hands if they like.  And we literally don't
know yet how instructional use will help refine what the end state should
be :)

On Monday, May 2, 2016, Richard Eisenberg <eir at cis.upenn.edu> wrote:

>
> On May 2, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Also, I'd suggest making (1) and (2) optional flags for :type rather
> > than new top-level commands. The shared prefix already suggests a common
> > purpose, printing out the type of something, so why not make it even
> > clearer that (1) and (2) are just specializations (heh) of :type?
>
> Others have echoed this and I'm open to the idea. But I, personally,
> dislike this. All three commands are useful, and I expect I'll want to
> frequently interleave which one I want during a GHCi session. Controlling
> via a flag makes this awkward.
>
> But that's just my 2¢.
>
> >
> > Eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org <javascript:;>
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org <javascript:;>
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20160502/129d1534/attachment.html>