On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 17:36:04 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > Sure, when it slows down your compiler so much that it's useless for > running code that doesn't have the error, especially if it's a rare > error that is likely to be caught some other way anyway. Where to > balance this should be the decision of the user, particularly since > the balance point changes over time and space.
Good point... Is there half-way solution, btw? Perhaps type inferrencing annotation rich areas is a good idea to help a user who is trying to debug by adding more of these. > It's also potentially counterproductive if the information available > at compile time leads to confusingly abstract error messages when > run-time information might produced clearer concrete error messages. > When I use the term "confusing", I do so in the Pooh sense. I'm trying > to think of what will be confusing to ordinary folks, not to geniuses > like you. *blush*. For the record it takes me roughly 1 irc client or around 10 careful, concentrated rereadings to understand what GHC tells me in these situations, but for the record. A useful reference is the Error Messages section on this page: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/survey2005-summary.html It mentions both that there are active areas of research on how to make these better, and that GHC messages both suck and don't suck at the same time. -- () Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker & /\ kung foo master: /me dodges cabbages like macalypse log N: neeyah!
Description: PGP signature