Hi, thanks for starting this discussion, and I agree with your suggestion. Maybe we can brainstorm some more fine refinements.
Given that our error message are on the rather verbose side, maybe there is detail that can be omitted. For example in > Relevant bindings include > syllables :: [(a1, Syllable)] > (bound at Derive/Call/India/Pakhawaj.hs:141:16) > best_match :: [(a1, Syllable)] > -> Maybe (Int, ([(a1, Syllable)], [(a1, Sequence Bol)])) > (bound at Derive/Call/India/Pakhawaj.hs:141:5) do we really need to know what file these come from? I guess, in all but very obscure cases (or really all) they are from the same file. So why not omit the filename? Also, unless the programmer is doing weird things with shadowing, is the "bound at" information really valuable? I’d say no: Usually, the programmer knows his bindings, and even if not, she will not have any problems finding the right binding. So I suggest to drop the "bound at" line unless the binding is from a different file. > This would make this section much easier to parse and grasp visually. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
