[Proposal] Renaming (:=:) to (==)

[Stijn van Drongelen]

What about (~~)?


On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can appreciate the objections to (==) and I'm absolutely open to other
> names.
>
> I just rather dislike (:=:).
>
> Lets throwing this open to bikeshedding. Alternatives?
>
> -Edward
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <roma at ro-che.info> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Richard here — this overloading of == doesn't seem
>> intuitive to me. Using it for type-level boolean equality would be much
>> more natural.
>>
>> That said, :=: could probably benefit from the relaxed rules for type
>> operators; I just don't think == is a good choice.
>>
>> Roman
>>
>> * Richard Eisenberg <eir at cis.upenn.edu> [2013-09-29 00:10:46-0400]
>> > -1 from me.
>> >
>> > Shachaf stated my argument correctly -- I think that the (:=:) operator
>> means something quite different from the term-level (==) operator, and the
>> name should reflect this. I do like thinking about a better name, though,
>> and I'm happy enough if I'm outvoted here.
>> >
>> > Richard
>> >
>> > On Sep 28, 2013, at 10:08 PM, Shachaf Ben-Kiki wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> As part of the discussion about Typeable, GHC 7.8 is going to
>> include a
>> > >> Data.Type.Equality module that provides a polykinded type equality
>> data
>> > >> type.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to propose that we rename this type to (==) rather than the
>> (:=:)
>> > >> it was developed under.
>> > >>
>> > >> We are already using (+), (-), (*), etc. at the type level in
>> type-nats, so
>> > >> it would seem to fit the surrounding convention.
>> > >>
>> > >> I've done the work of preparing a patch, visible here:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> https://github.com/ekmett/packages-base/commit/fb47f8368ad3d40fdd79bdeec334c0554fb17110
>> > >>
>> > >> Thoughts?
>> > >>
>> > >> Normally, I'd let this run the usual 2 week course, but we're
>> getting down
>> > >> to the wire for 7.8's release. Once 7.8 ships, we'd basically be
>> stuck with
>> > >> the current name forever.
>> > >>
>> > >> Discussion Period: 1 week
>> > >>
>> > >> -Edward Kmett
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > +1. For what it's worth, I suggested that name before, and Richard
>> > > Eisenberg suggested that == should be for type-level Boolean equality:
>> > > <http://markmail.org/message/3yifytgt2k3cfwws>. I'm not convinced,
>> > > though -- this seems fundamental enough to deserve the simplest name
>> > > possible.
>> > >
>> > > (I'm using that link because the haskell.org mailing list archive
>> > > seems to be gone... Hopefully that comes back, eventually.)
>> > >
>> > >    Shachaf
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Libraries mailing list
>> > > Libraries at haskell.org
>> > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Libraries mailing list
>> > Libraries at haskell.org
>> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130929/199630ee/attachment.html>