I'm joining this conversation late, but I favor TypeFamilyDependencies over InjectiveTypeFamilies. We use the annotations for things other than injectivity! For example,
> type family Plus a b = r | r a -> b, r b -> a is not injective under any common understanding of the word. And the argument-to-argument dependencies Simon has been musing about are even further from the meaning of "injective". Richard On Jan 8, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Jan Stolarek <jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl> wrote: >> Is "InjectiveTypeFamilies" a good name for this? Or >> "TypeFamilyDependencies"? Or what? > My vote for "InjectiveTypeFamilies". > > Janek > > --- > Politechnika Łódzka > Lodz University of Technology > > Treść tej wiadomości zawiera informacje przeznaczone tylko dla adresata. > Jeżeli nie jesteście Państwo jej adresatem, bądź otrzymaliście ją przez > pomyłkę > prosimy o powiadomienie o tym nadawcy oraz trwałe jej usunięcie. > > This email contains information intended solely for the use of the individual > to whom it is addressed. > If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this message in > error, > please notify the sender and delete it from your system. > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs