Tom Ellis <tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2...@jaguarpaw.co.uk> writes: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:19:25PM +0000, Tom Ellis wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:13:23PM -0500, Richard Eisenberg wrote: >> > We're in a bit of a bind in all this. We really need the fancy type for >> > ($) so that it can be used in all situations where it is used currently. >> >> Is there a list of situations where ($) is used currently that give rise to >> this need? > > Does anyone have any idea about this? What is it about ($) that means it > needs a new funky type whereas (apparently) nothing else does?
The first (albeit rather unconvincing) example I can think of is be
something like,
getI# :: Int -> Int#
getI# (I# n#) = n#
n# :: Int#
n# = getI# $ 5 + 8
Richard likely has something a bit less contrived though.
This does raise the question of why ($) is generalized, yet (.) is not,
(.) :: forall (l :: Levity) a b (c :: TYPE l).
(b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)
(.) f g x = f (g x)
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
