On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <r...@ro-che.info> wrote: > I don't see why it is an issue. You should never encounter holes in the > released code. The only source of holes should be stuff that you just > wrote. With this proposal not only you get an error for the unbound > variable (as you'd get before), but GHC even tells you the type of a > thing that you should plug there! > > Roman >
That's a good point. Upon reflection, my concerns are motivated by how I expect I'll be using holes. I anticipate that will be for dealing with complex code, and that's when I really don't want any other surprises. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
