John Hughes wrote: > * You can't eta-convert definitions freely, if there is no type signature. ... > * Definitions without a type-signature can change ...
(entering ironic mode, but not quite:) So, what about making type signatures mandatory, as the rest of the civilized world does happily for decades ... Yeah I know this would "break" some programs, but aren't these "broken" from the start because they are missing the easiest and safest and most effective way of documentation? If you say "writing out all type signatures is awkward", then exactly why? Because the type system is too complex? Then it should be fixed. I think it's not. Then perhaps because the types of the functions are too complex? Then these functions should be fixed (by refactoring, introducing helper type names, etc.). If this seems impossible, then the function itself probably *is* complex, and its type would give valuable information, and I don't see what a programmer (or a reader) benefits from a language that allows to omit this information. Respectfully submitted, -- -- Johannes Waldmann -- Tel/Fax (0341) 3076 6479/80 -- ---- http://www.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/~waldmann/ ------- _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
