* Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> [2012-10-05 07:14:36+0000] > | Sounds cool. I would also expect that if you have several occurences of > | the same unbound identifier, then it gets a unified type. > > I thought about this, but I think not. Consider > > f x1 = _y > g x2 = _y > > Do you want _y and _y to be unified, so that f and g are no longer > polymorphic? I think not. Any more than the "_" holes we have now are > unified.
Do you mean polymorphism in their argument? Why would it go away? I would expect the functions to get types `a -> c` and `b -> c` respectively, and `c` to be reported as the type of the hole. Roman _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
