There's a fair amount of code out there which uses (~>) as a type
variable (we have ~10k lines of heavy arrow code at iPwn). It would be
*really* nice if that could be accommodated somehow. But the proposal
you just gave at least would allow for a textual substitution, so not
quite so bad as having
Fair point. So you are saying it'd be ok to say
data T (.->) = MkT (Int .-> Int)
where (.+) is a type variable? Leaving ordinary (+) available for type
constructors.
If we are inverting the convention I wonder whether we might invert it
completely and use ":" as the "I'm different" heral
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Evan Laforge wrote:
> Relatedly, I've noticed that OS X is forgiving when you don't link in
> a needed object. It will let me run code, but if I call a function
> that's not linked in I get a crash. However, linux immediately prints
> "unknown symbol `etc.'". T
