<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 13:38, Johan Tibell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com">johan.tibell@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones<br>
<<a href="mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com">simonpj@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> I know of no proposal that advocates only (A). It seems that we are agreed<br>
</div>> that we must make use of types to disambiguate common cases.<br>
<br>
I will try to make the case for (A), just so it has been put on the table.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the point is more that, given (b), (a) is seen to be redundant. Which I don't understand; seems to me that, in the context of (b), it's a way to easily provide more information to the type inferencer (which, given that (b) adds more complexity to the inferencer, looks like a way to control that complexity in practice) without hardcoding a type.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>brandon s allbery <a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a><br>wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms<br>
<br>
</div>