Hi everyone > On 07 Nov 2013, at 23:54, Daniel Trstenjak <daniel.trsten...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Simon, > >> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 02:02:06PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >> The motivation is this. Consider >> >> f True >> >> where f :: Int -> Char >> >> Then >> f *expects* an argument of type Int >> but the *actual* argument has type Bool >> >> Does that help? > > If you would switch the meaning of 'Expected' and 'Actual', than it > still could make perfectly sense and my brain seems to tend to this > switched meaning. >
Yeah I can see how that may happen. f's argument type is *actually* an Int, but it was used in a way that caller *expects* it to have a type Bool > I think my main issue is the word 'Actual'. I seem to associate > something more authoritative with this word and not just a wrongly given > type by the user, and on the other side 'Expected' doesn't feel authoritative > enough. > > Yes, I think the combination of the words 'Expected' and 'Actual' is > irritating me and that I'm perceiving 'Actual' as the more authoritative one. > > > Perhaps: > > Couldn't match type `A' with `B´ > Real type: B > Given type: A > > > Or instead of 'Given', like others have suggested: 'Provided' or 'Supplied'. > > > Greetings, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
