On 21 October 2010 10:54, Glen Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > My feeling is that having type annotation binding tightly, possibly > even tighter than function application, makes for easy to read code - > it seems to remove a level of indirection. My expectations, biased by > real world experience of annotations in margins and sticky-notes > (heady stuff I know!), is that a type annotation would refer to > whatever it's nearest to. In fact, until reading this thread, I > thought haskell type annotations had high precedence simply because > high precedence seemed so intuitive that I hadn't even considered that > they'd work any other way. > > I'm unsure whether or not the locality of annotation and subject would > be worth having parens all over the place to deal with the situations > Wren mentioned as I've not travelled far enough with haskell to have > experienced it. > > I hope the thoughts of somebody with a little (ok a lot) less > experience are useful. >
Of course the counter-argument could be made that if the people who end up reading and auditing code come with haskell / ML baggage high precedence of type annotations could be as problematic for them as the counter-intuitive nature of low precedence gives for those with a background in C or with no prior exposure to type annotations. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
