Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Heinrich Apfelmus <apfel...@quantentunnel.de> [2012-09-23 10:51:26+0200]
Unfortunately, making literals polymorphic does not always achieve
the desired effect of reducing syntax. In fact, they can instead
increase syntax! In other words, I would like to point out that there
is a trade-off involved: is it worth introducing a small syntactic
reduction at the cost of both a small additional conceptual
complexity and some syntactic enlargement elsewhere?
Can't you just disable the extension when you realise that it
makes your life harder?
I thought so, too, but there is actually a "social" catch.
Namely, a library/DSL can be designed with that extension in mind and
advocate its use. The [scotty][] library is an example for this.
In particular, the RoutePattern type is made an instance of IsString
and the example code uses it extensively. If I want to disable the
extension, I have to translate the example code first. When learning a
library for the first time, this can be rather confusing.
[scotty]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/scotty
Best regards,
Heinrich Apfelmus
--
http://apfelmus.nfshost.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
