On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> 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 :)
Indeed.
> > 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 :)
It's already possible to write
asTypeOf ::
a {- ^ the input value to be passed through -}
-> a {- ^ the value is ignored, but the type is unified with the first
parameter -}
-> a {- ^ the value of the first parameter -}
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
