> Types cannot always be derived automatically, especially when coming to > Haskell extensions. Sometimes you also want to restrict the type. E.g. for > asTypeOf _ y = y > you explicitly want the type > asTypeOf :: a -> a -> a > not the automatically derived one: > asTypeOf :: b -> a -> a
Yes, sometimes it is neccerary to give an explicit type. But in so many cases, type inference works fine no? What I usually do, is use the GHCi t: command, copy/paste that in my code, and then make the type signature more specific if it has to be. It's often funny to see how generic the code really is :) I wonder what a typical LISP/Scheme programmer thinks of type signatures... > It's a problem in Haskell that there are no unique parameter names, due to > pattern matching. Yes, but it would be nice to attach some "parameter-comment" to the types no? Now a lot of documentation is written in the style "the 7th parameter is...". Not very user friendly :) Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe