TypeDirectedNameResolution: Difference between revisions
Benmachine (talk | contribs) (notes on operator e) |
Benmachine (talk | contribs) m (hask not haskell) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
= Other comments = | = Other comments = | ||
* A lot of people have commented that using < | * A lot of people have commented that using <hask>.</hask> for this as well as composition and qualification is going to start getting confusing. One alternative suggestion was <hask>-></hask> but this would conflict with case branches and lambda syntax. Similar things like <hask>~></hask> or <hask>--></hask> could work too, but look a little uglier. | ||
Revision as of 18:29, 17 November 2009
Type directed name resolution
This publicly editable page is a place to summarise comments on the Haskell Prime proposal for Type Directed Name Resolution (TDNR).
- The TDNR proposal
Straw poll
It's hard to gauge how much people like proposals like this, so let's try the experiment of collecting votes here:
Names of people who would positively like to see TDNR happen (say briefly why)
- Simon PJ (I wrote the proposal)
Names of people who think that on balance it's a bad idea
- fill in here
Other comments
- A lot of people have commented that using
.for this as well as composition and qualification is going to start getting confusing. One alternative suggestion was->but this would conflict with case branches and lambda syntax. Similar things like~>or-->could work too, but look a little uglier.