On Thu, 28 May 2009, Claus Reinke wrote:
Just, please, keep in mind that there is no one-size-fits-all:
improving a message for one group of users might well make
it less useful for another group.
I once thought, that error messages must be configurable by libraries,
too. This would be
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Simon Michael si...@joyful.com wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
expected/encountered
Expected/actual ? Familiar to users of test frameworks.
That does sound better than expected/inferred to me.
-- Johan
___
One user's view of error message history, perhaps helpful to reformers:-)
Once upon a time, Hugs tended to have better error messages than GHC.
They still weren't perfect, mostly when begginners where confronted with
messages referring to advanced concepts - eg, Simon Thompson had a list
of
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 01:45 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
for me, it was better than ghc errmsg. main thing is that i don't feel
automatically what is expected and what is inferred. here Hugs says
that True is Bool and the remaining is Int, so i feel the situation
I absolutely agree about
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Jeff Wheeler j...@nokrev.com wrote:
I absolutely agree about expected/inferred. I always forget which is
which, because I can figure both could apply to each.
That's actually true for me too. When you say it like that, I remember
times when I've had the same
