Me too, for (A)! (B) looks too ugly for me. A type declaration should
refer to the "most local" definition of the name. I think of the type
declaration, though optional, as being _part of_ the definition, so the
name should look the same.
Btw, why would one declare the type of a function defined outside the
current module? For documentation only? I would just use a comment if
that's the case. IMHO, if allowed, such declarations should always have
to be qualified to avoid confusion.
Matt
P.S. M.reverse line corrected below.
> > Since it's a Haskell 98 issue, I am in favour of (A):
> >
> > reverse :: [a] -> [a]
> > reverse xs = Prelude.reverse (tail xs)
> >
> > Alternative (B) looks rather ugly:
> >
> > M.reverse :: [a] -> [a]
> > reverse xs = Prelude.reverse (tail xs)
> >
> > Cheers, Ralf
>
> I completely agree.
>
> Erik
