[Proposal] Renaming (:=:) to (==)
carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 20:03:44 UTC 2013
On Monday, September 30, 2013, Edward A Kmett wrote:
> I think if someone went through the effort of writing a patch so you could
> at least introduce local operator names with an explicit forall, like with
> ScopedTypeVariables and the proposed explicit type applications then it'd
> probably be accepted.
> Sent from my iPhone
> 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.
> Not at all meaning to start a syntax debate on this thread. Just an
> explanation of my -1 for the topic at hand.
> - Conal
> -- Conal
> > 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
>> 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:
>> 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
>> Libraries mailing list
>> 'Libraries at haskell.org');>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries