On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Carter Schonwald wrote:
i'm confused, are these types ever human writeable?
Yes, this syntax is meant to be also used for giving human-written type
signatures for pattern synonym definitions.
If not, are they meant to be an operational way of communicating how a pattern
works?
In which case, wouldn't having the pattern definition visible in the haddocks
be a
simpler way to communicate it?
The pattern definition itself should be abstract for the same reason
function definitions are abstract. Imagine if the Haddock docs contained
the definition of all functions instead of their types...
Bye,
Gergo
--
.--= ULLA! =-----------------.
\ http://gergo.erdi.hu \
`---= ge...@erdi.hu =-------'
Post tenebras lux, post fenestras Tux._______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
