On 10/23/07, Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe it is to do with the requirement that expressions have a > unique principle type. Certainly in principle the algorithm you outline > is possible, but I don't know what else you would lose.
I'm not familiar with the term "principal type". I shall have to study it. > > And I would like to say that whether or not I need it is not the > > issue, as I currently do not in fact need it. This is a study of the > > Haskell language not my possible practical applications of it. > > Whether one needs it, or does not need it, is indeed an issue: any > change to the type inference algorithm has a cost. That cost has to be > judged against the value of it. If an extension is seldom needed, then > its value is low, so the cost is unlikely to be considered worth it. If > an extension is frequently need and the cost is low, then that argues > for it.. Ah... harsh realities of engineering. Well I hope this is judged to be important enough to be included in a future revision of Haskell. Thanks, TJ _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
