Perhaps already as part of such a feedback round/bikeshedding opportunity, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who finds the name "TypeHoles" confusing, since as far as I understand, the extension enables holes in *expressions*, not types... I would personally find something like TypedHoles (note the added d) or ExpressionHoles or something similar more intuitive. Not that I have strong feelings about this, though... Note that I haven't actually tried the extension yet, but from the description, it seems like a very nice addition to GHC, so kudos to whoever did the work...
Regards, Dominique 2014/1/13 Richard Eisenberg <e...@cis.upenn.edu>: > Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does specifying TypeHoles make GHC > not compliant with Haskell 2010? Turning on TypeHoles should change only > error messages. The set of programs that compile (and their meanings) should > remain unchanged, by my understanding. > > I'm mildly in favor of this change, but I agree that perhaps a conversation > on the users list and/or waiting a cycle isn't a bad idea. > > Richard > > On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/01/2014 22:56, Krzysztof Gogolewski wrote: >>> I propose to enable -XTypeHoles in GHC by default. >> >> GHC supports strict Haskell 2010 by default, and enabling any extensions >> breaks that property. That's why we don't have any extensions on by default. >> >> Cheers, >> Simon >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> ghc-devs@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
