names, modules, types
Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:46:29 +0100 (MET)
> There is exponential growth of possibilities in compound expressions.
> And I'm afraid that ambiguities would happen in unexpected places and
> it would not be easy to find where to add type signatures. Especially
> as there is less explicit type information than in many other
> statically typed languages.
Yes, I see that. However I think that adding type signatures
is good programming practice anyway, and I wouldn't mind if a future Haskell
required me to do some explicit typing (for top-level definitions, say).
What are the ergonomic benefits of allowing the programmer
to omit type declarations? It does invite sloppy programming, no?
And does it make life easier or harder for the compiler (writer)?
-- Johannes Waldmann ---- http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~joe/ --
-- email@example.com -- phone/fax (+49) 341 9732 204/252 --