At Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:15:06 +0100,
Paterson, Ross wrote:
>
> > True. That ambiguity could be avoided by adding the word "declaration"
> > after "type signature".
>
> On second thoughts, this is unnecessary. The Report consistently uses
> "expression type signature" for the expression and "type signature"
> for the declaration.
I already sent the haskell-prime mailing list a proposal for the
following wording:
A binding b1 depends on a binding b2 in the same list of
declarations if either
1. b1 contains a free identifier v, v is bound by b2, and the
list of declarations does not contain a type signature for
v; or
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2011-June/003482.html
I think this is clearer, but it might make more sense to discuss on
haskell-prime.
David
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
