Indeed -- lovely notational tricks, Iavor Edward! I think I'd be happy
with one of these variations. At least worth experimenting with.
-- Conal
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Carter Schonwald
carter.schonw...@gmail.com wrote:
1) kudos to iavor and edward on the slick notation invention!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
[...]
Type inference
~
I'm a little unclear about the implications for inference. One route
might be this. Suppose we are trying to solve a constraint
[W] (a:'(k1,ks)) ~ '( t1, t2 )
where a is
Please see my responses inline.
On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Eta rules
~~
* We want to add eta-rules to FC. Sticking to pairs for now, that would
amount to
adding two new type functions (Fst, Snd), and three new, built-in axioms
axPair k1 k2
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
I don't really want to eagerly eta-expand every type variable, because (a)
we'll bloat the constraints and (b) we might get silly error messages. For
(b) consider the insoluble constraint
[W] a~b
where a
