I couldn't live without ScopedTypeVariables. For me it's an essential tool when I want to figure out
1. if the type being inferred is the one I expect 2. what type a specific thing in code I am working with is Also useful for adding that one bit the inferer is missing without immediately modifying a complex type sig. I can do that later, but the proof of concept should be quick and easy. Backwards compat: Isn't this what we have Haskell 98, Haskell 2010, etc? On Sat, 5 May 2018 04:35 Anthony Clayden, <anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote: > This thread is a discussion about discussions, not the discussion itself > ;-) > > I'm cc'ing to the cafe; but I'd prefer replies to come to > glasgow-haskell-users. > > > >> I can volunteer to at least scrape together all the objections to > ScopedTypeVariables as currently. It's not yet a proposal, so not on > github. Start a wiki page? A cafe thread? (It'll get lost.) A ghc-users > thread? (It'll get ignored.) > > > ... don’t care what forums or list or whatever. As long as it’s > collated and such > > It could even be on the prime issue tracker for prime proposals. Just > that it’s written down :) > > Thanks Carter, but I understand Haskell Prime to be to assess > mature/stable proposals (preferably already delivered as extensions). This > discussion is at first going to be more exploratory: > * likes and dislikes about ScopedTypeVariables as currently. > * confusions experienced by users (especially newbies) > -- although absolute newbies wouldn't be using it(?), so intermediates? > * feedback from those teaching Haskell. > * wild ideas for possible alternative designs. > * possible improvements to the current design. > * I think we're all agreed that ScopedTypeVariables should have been in > Haskell from the beginning; > but it wasn't, so now we have to worry about backwards compatibility for > programs that worked around the omission. > Or do we? What code would break? How much pain would that cause? > * anything else? > > > We have lots of forums, but your point is that certain sorts of > discussions never get going with the right audience – you especially point > to “confused beginners”. > > ... It’s quite a challenge because beginners tend not to be vocal, and > yet they are a crucial set of Haskell users. Every Haskell user started as > a beginner. > > On this particular topic, there's plenty of confused people asking > questions on StackOverflow. (Heads up: they're especially asking why they > need explicit `forall` whereas in reguar Haskell that 'intermediates' see, > the forall is implicit.) > > Can other people point me to questions/likes/dislikes on other forums? > Reddit for example. > > If you've read this far, you now understand what we're trying to cover. > It's going to be random/varied thoughts at first, then perhaps coalescing > to an approach or two. At that point a formal proposal on github proper; > and the random stuff might be interesting background but will essentially > get archived/thrown away. > > I do agree with David's suggestion that github Issue tracker looks like a > suitable solution. We can write formatted code and text. We can add links > and references. What do others think? Joachim has opened up Issues tracker, > as a try-out. If using it doesn't work out, that's fine and in keeping with > my "thrown away" above. > > Also where else should I post links to this message to 'advertise' the > thread? I don't reddit much, so if that's suitable, please someone post > there. > > Thank you > AntC > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
