On 8/22/06, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what i propose is not full replacement of existing syntax - quite the
contrary it is just a syntax sugar for most frequent cases of using
classes in function signatures. the key idea is that in most cases we
use only one type class for each type variable, and the same type for
each occurrence of type class in the type:
(+) :: Num -> Num -> Num
[...]
so, while this proposal is rather minor, i think that it is Good thing
I disagree. As a new learner to Haskell, I already have a hard time
keeping Constructors, Types, and Classes straight. I know what they
all are and what they all do, but sometimes I really have to think
hard to remember which is which in a piece of code. What helps my
understanding is that each has a specific place in the type signature
(which I guess includes 'nowhere' regarding constructors). Being able
to put Classes where Types go would just serve to muddle that
understanding.
Bryan Burgers
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
