Naming types

[Ian Lynagh]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 06:25:53PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> |
> | But then you wouldn't be able to write the current meaning of
> |     Chan (Int ? Bool ! Emp)
> | with infix type variables.
> 
> I am proposing a *change* from current behavior

I realise that, I'm just not convinced that completely removing the
ability to use infix type variables is a good change.

> | You might say that people don't want to generalise over type
> | constructors, but I am not so sure.
> 
> Oh, they certainly do.  My proposal is that it's (much) more important to be able to use (+) for type constructors than for type variables.

I'd have thought that good infix syntax was more important for data
constructors than type constructors, and we manage with a : prefix for
data constructors.


Thanks
Ian