OT: Symbolic type variables (was Re: [Proposal] Renaming (:=:) to (==))

Erik Hesselink hesselink at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 18:59:12 UTC 2013

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net> wrote:
> I'm hoping we don't get more deeply invested in the syntactic change in GHC
> 7.6 that removed the possibility of symbolic type variables ("~>", "*", "+",
> etc). I had a new job and wasn't paying attention when SPJ polled the
> community. From my perspective, the loss has much greater scope than the
> gain for type level naturals. I'd like to keep the door open to the
> possibility of bringing back the old notation with the help of a language
> pragma. It would take a few of us to draft a proposal addressing details.

I also miss these on a regular basis. I seem to remember that during
the proposal, there was a mention of reversing the situation, i.e.
having a prefix for type variable operators instead. Did anything ever
come of that?


More information about the Libraries mailing list