Naming types

[Ian Lynagh]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:05:29PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> 
> As I understand it, (+) would be syntactically a type constructor, not a 
> type variable.
>
> > I'm not really convinced that there should be different rules for the
> > value and type levels, though.
> 
> Arguably we should drop the upper/lower case distinction altogether, on 
> the grounds that some (written) languages don't even have it.  That 
> would solve this problem and restore unity, but it's a much bigger 
> change and has other disadvantages.

I was suggesting that this change shouldn't be made, not that a larger
change should be made. (a larger change would be nice in principle, but
the obvious possibilities would make code uglier in the common case).

Incidentally, it might be worth breaking proposal 1 into two separate
proposals: It would be useful to be able to disambiguate imports/exports
even if we don't change the lexical rules for types, as it would allow
the class and type namespaces to be separated.


Thanks
Ian