Re: data kinds
When we discussed this last time (summarized by the link Pedro sent, I think) it came up that it might be nice to also have kind synonyms, which would be analogous to type synonyms, but one level up. The natural syntax for that would be to have a type kind declaration, but this seems a bit confusing... What about just 'kind'? It's symmetric with 'type'. Erik ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: data kinds
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk wrote: GHC implements data kinds by promoting data declarations of a certain restricted form, but I wonder if it would be better to have a special syntax for kind definitions, say data kind Nat = Zero | Succ Nat This is exactly the syntax jhc uses for user defined kinds. John ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: data kinds
Hello, I think that it'd be really useful to be able to just declare a `kind` without having to promote a datatype. When we discussed this last time (summarized by the link Pedro sent, I think) it came up that it might be nice to also have kind synonyms, which would be analogous to type synonyms, but one level up. The natural syntax for that would be to have a type kind declaration, but this seems a bit confusing... John, did you implement kind synonyms in jhc, and if so what syntax did you use? -Iavor On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM, John Meacham j...@repetae.net wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.ukwrote: GHC implements data kinds by promoting data declarations of a certain restricted form, but I wonder if it would be better to have a special syntax for kind definitions, say data kind Nat = Zero | Succ Nat This is exactly the syntax jhc uses for user defined kinds. John ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
data kinds
GHC implements data kinds by promoting data declarations of a certain restricted form, but I wonder if it would be better to have a special syntax for kind definitions, say data kind Nat = Zero | Succ Nat At the moment, things get promoted whether you need them or not, and if you've made some mistake that makes your definition non-promotable you don't find out until you try to use it. More importantly, a separate form for kinds would allow one to use existing kinds, i.e. *, in definitions of new kinds. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: data kinds
See http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GhcKinds/KindsWithoutData Cheers, Pedro On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk wrote: GHC implements data kinds by promoting data declarations of a certain restricted form, but I wonder if it would be better to have a special syntax for kind definitions, say data kind Nat = Zero | Succ Nat At the moment, things get promoted whether you need them or not, and if you've made some mistake that makes your definition non-promotable you don't find out until you try to use it. More importantly, a separate form for kinds would allow one to use existing kinds, i.e. *, in definitions of new kinds. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
