On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:57:18AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:06:29PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>So I envisage that you'd turn off the warning in the same way as > >>you turn off the M-R today: by a type signature. > > > >But if people were happy adding type signatures for every polymorphic > >variable definition, they wouldn't be moving to eliminate the M-R, would > >they? Or do I misunderstand? > > Well, my feeling is that the M-R is an ugly wart, and I want it gone. > But I'm still happy to put a type signature when I want something to > be polymorphic.
Ok, I understand your position now. But even given this view, I think the warning will be problematic. First, when will the warning be emitted? For all variable assignments without signatures, or only for those that the implementation fails to monomorphize (as an optimization)? The first is heavy-handed; the second, obviously implementation-dependent (someone using another implementation, or another optimization level, will get the warning and will lose sharing). Second, a warning about "loss of sharing" may befuddle beginners (who are usually not taught to write type signatures at the start). Well, maybe when someone implements this warning, we will find out I'm wrong and it doesn't cause trouble. And I agree with removing the M-R, with or without the warning. Andrew _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
