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
John Dorsey hask...@colquitt.org wrote:
As another native English speaker, I found expected/inferred very
intuitive when I was new to GHC, and to Haskell. I even think that
expected/inferred helped me form my intuition about Haskell's type
inference.
First off, me too, and I'm not a native
Achim Schneider wrote:
expected/encountered
Expected/actual ? Familiar to users of test frameworks.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hello Max,
Thursday, May 28, 2009, 1:30:28 AM, you wrote:
I prefer this wording:
The inferred type of `True' is `Bool',
while the type of the first argument of `f' should be `Int'.
In the expression: f True
yes, it's also self-explanatory
I prefer all three to Hugs's
ERROR - Type
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
Hello Jeff,
Thursday, May 28, 2009, 2:03:30 AM, you wrote:
I absolutely agree about expected/inferred. I always forget which is
which, because I can figure both could apply to each.
thank you, it's what i meant! compiler infers types of both caller and
its argument and then expect to see
Hello Max,
Thursday, May 28, 2009, 2:14:19 AM, you 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 confusion.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Bulat Ziganshin
bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Max,
Thursday, May 28, 2009, 2:14:19 AM, you 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
I like the expected/inferred vocabulary. Maybe it comes from being a
native English speaker, but to me, it says this is what we expected
to get, but instead (through type inference), we got this type for
this term.
As another native English speaker, I found expected/inferred very
intuitive
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 23:59 -0400, John Dorsey wrote:
There was one hang-up; it wasn't at all clear which referred to the term,
and which referred to the context. (Really both types are inferred.) This
stopped bothering me when I decided it didn't matter which was which, and I
could
13 matches
Mail list logo
