Personal tools

TypeDirectedNameResolution

From HaskellWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (hask not haskell)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
Names of people who would positively like to see TDNR happen (say briefly why)
 
Names of people who would positively like to see TDNR happen (say briefly why)
 
* Simon PJ (I wrote the proposal)
 
* Simon PJ (I wrote the proposal)
 +
* Daniel Fischer (I think it would be an improvement to the language. I have not much missed it yet, so I don't feel strongly about it, though.)
  
 
Names of people who think that on balance it's a bad idea
 
Names of people who think that on balance it's a bad idea
Line 18: Line 19:
  
 
* 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.
 
* 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.
 +
 +
However, I think a little ugly is preferable to confusing or conflicting with syntax. I ''think'' using '.' won't be too confusing (we all separate the composition operator from the functions by a space anyway, don't we?), so I'd go with that. But rater than letting it die over '.'-ambiguity, I'd choose a different notation (would <hask>a#f</hask> be an option?).[[User:Daniel.is.fischer|Daniel.is.fischer]] 21:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:06, 17 November 2009

1 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).

2 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)
  • Daniel Fischer (I think it would be an improvement to the language. I have not much missed it yet, so I don't feel strongly about it, though.)

Names of people who think that on balance it's a bad idea

  • fill in here

3 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.
However, I think a little ugly is preferable to confusing or conflicting with syntax. I think using '.' won't be too confusing (we all separate the composition operator from the functions by a space anyway, don't we?), so I'd go with that. But rater than letting it die over '.'-ambiguity, I'd choose a different notation (would
a#f
be an option?).Daniel.is.fischer 21:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)