Difference between revisions of "Nitpicks"

From HaskellWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Syntax-related nitpicks)
(Syntax-related nitpicks)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
* Introduce a newtype/data with the sign <hask>::=</hask> instead of <hask>=</hask>. See https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-August/120724.html
 
* Introduce a newtype/data with the sign <hask>::=</hask> instead of <hask>=</hask>. See https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-August/120724.html
 
* A type should be introduced with the sign <hask>:</hask> instead of <hask>::</hask> as in many other languages and mathematical papers. Conversely <hask>::</hask> should be used as the cons operator.
 
* A type should be introduced with the sign <hask>:</hask> instead of <hask>::</hask> as in many other languages and mathematical papers. Conversely <hask>::</hask> should be used as the cons operator.
  +
* The kind for inhabited types <hask>(*)</hask> is not an operator. See https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/DependentHaskell/Phase1#ishardtoparse
   
 
== Semantics-related nitpicks ==
 
== Semantics-related nitpicks ==

Revision as of 13:59, 20 August 2015


This page is for people to record nitpicks about the Haskell language.

A "nitpick", in this case, is something that is annoying or could be improved, but is probably not important enough to justify the added complexity of tacking it on as an extension or breaking existing code.

In other words, if we could go back in time and fix it before it happened, we probably would, but now it would probably be too onerous.

Ideally, these nitpicks could help to inform future proposals or compatibility-breaking changes to the language. Even if they may be too onerous to change right now, it's possible that it would make sense to address them at some other time.

If the nitpick has been discussed at length, please post a link to the discussion.

Syntax-related nitpicks

Semantics-related nitpicks

Base-related nitpicks