Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) allow to use type classes in type declarations like the types
itself. for example, allow the following:
f :: Num a = a - Int
write as
f :: Num - Int
and following:
sequence :: Monad m = [m a] - m [a]
write as
sequence :: [Monad a] - Monad
Hello Malcolm,
Tuesday, August 22, 2006, 4:22:50 PM, you wrote:
2) allow to use type classes in type declarations like the types
itself. for example, allow the following:
f :: Num a = a - Int
write as
f :: Num - Int
and following:
sequence :: Monad m = [m a] - m [a]
write as
On 8/22/06, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what i propose is not full replacement of existing syntax - quite the
contrary it is just a syntax sugar for most frequent cases of using
classes in function signatures. the key idea is that in most cases we
use only one type class for each
Hello Bryan,
On 2006-08-22, Bryan Burgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, while this proposal is rather minor, i think that it is Good thing
I disagree. As a new learner to Haskell, I already have a hard time
keeping Constructors, Types, and Classes straight. I know what they
all are and what
Arie said:
{... This is an instance of a general conflict: should we sacrifice nice
notation for ease of learning? You could make a similar case for list
comprehensions, for example: they complicate matters for newcomers (yet
another meaning of brackets and pipe) ...}
I have to totally agree
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Tuesday, August 22, 2006, 4:22:50 PM, you wrote:
2) allow to use type classes in type declarations like the types
itself. for example, allow the following:
f :: Num a = a - Int
write as
f :: Num - Int
and following:
sequence :: Monad m = [m a] - m
Hello Arie,
Tuesday, August 22, 2006, 7:24:34 PM, you wrote:
I disagree. As a new learner to Haskell, I already have a hard time
keeping Constructors, Types, and Classes straight. I know what they
all are and what they all do, but sometimes I really have to think
hard to remember which is
