Comments on current TypeHoles implementation
nicolas.frisby at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 00:17:08 CEST 2012
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <roma at ro-che.info> wrote:
> I don't see why it is an issue. You should never encounter holes in the
> released code. The only source of holes should be stuff that you just
> wrote. With this proposal not only you get an error for the unbound
> variable (as you'd get before), but GHC even tells you the type of a
> thing that you should plug there!
That's a good point.
Upon reflection, my concerns are motivated by how I expect I'll be
using holes. I anticipate that will be for dealing with complex code,
and that's when I really don't want any other surprises.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users