igloo at earth.li
Sat Sep 27 20:59:45 EDT 2008
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
More information about the Cvs-ghc