I don't think it's a good idea to create a dumbed down Prelude and existing resources not covering what programmers need to know in order to actually use Haskell as everyone else uses it is much of the reason I had to write a book to begin with. This type isn't just noise for beginners, it's noise for practitioners too. Consider what I said earlier about a 15 year user of Haskell finding the type confusing and irrelevant.
There are a couple good proposals for addressing levity polymorphism leaking into the type. I think the one Ben Gamari had in mind that I thought would be fine is waiting for a patch. On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty < c...@justtesting.org> wrote: > > Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org>: > > builds. In effect the message to users would be, > > > > "yes, unboxed types exist and they are now on sound theoretical > > footing, but they are still largely an implementation detail, just as > > they have always been. If you want to use them you need to know > > where to look." > > > > Perhaps this can be revisited at some point in the future when we have a > > better story for a beginner's Prelude but for now I'm not sure we want > > to subject everyone to these new types. > > > > Anyways, this is just my two cents. It would be nice to hear what others > > think. > > Sounds like a good plan to me. > > Manuel > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > -- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
