Dear all, Malcolm wrote: > As far as I can see, there is very little to change. Here is a > concrete proposal. > [...] > Anyone see any difficulties?
Georg asked: > No, but one question: If the type signature is given in the export > lists, is it then necessary (or even allowed) later on? > I would vote for _not_ having it twice in the file. I'd in principle welcome the possibility to write type signatures in export lists. (I often write them there anyway, but as comments). But I admit I have not thought about what the caveats might be. If type signatures in export lists are allowed, I would hope it would be possible to put a type signature next to the actual definition as well, though, unless that would be terribly complicated for some reason (in which case I'd personally stick with the unannotated export list). /Henrik -- Henrik Nilsson School of Computer Science and Information Technology The University of Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
