> Couldn't match expected type `Bool -> [a]' > against inferred type `()' > In the first argument of `a', namely `()' > In the expression: a () > In the definition of `d': d = a ()
Also, I don't know what other people will think, but something bothers me about the "In" on the third line - perhaps if we replaced, on just that line, "In" with "For": > Couldn't match expected type `Bool -> [a]' > against inferred type `()' > For the first argument of `a', namely `()' > In the expression: a () > In the definition of `d': d = a () then it would help reinforce the idea that the given expression E := `()' is the referent of the words "expected" and "inferred" - i.e. that the first type is "expected" *of* E by the context, and the second type is "inferred" *for* E from other judgments. Does that make sense? Otherwise, since from different perspectives both types are both expected and inferred, I think there is potential for confusion (the other perspective is, respecting the context). Thanks, Frederik _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list Glasgow-haskell-bugs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
