On 2/11/12 8:12 PM, John Meacham wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy<r...@cse.unsw.edu.au>
wrote:
IMO, polymorphic kinds are far too experimental at this stage to be used in
such a fundamental library. I also fully agree with Ian's point about other
implementations.
Should there perhaps be a NewTypeable module which could then be renamed into
Typeable once it is sufficiently well established?
I hate using things like 'new', 'old', 'unsafe' in module names, the
words are too overloaded and mean different things in different
contexts. you end up with things like 'NewerTypeable'. So why not call
it what it is already known by, 'Data.PolyTypeable'.
+1. Both for leaving it out of the way until kind polymorphism and the
design have solidified a bit more (how far away is 7.6/7.8 exactly?),
and for avoiding the use of "new"/"old" when other names are sensible.
Though I do support the change eventually. Having seven different
Typeable classes just for different kinds is horrific, and it'll be nice
to see all that washed away with a proper kind-polymorphic class.
--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
