I'm sympathetic to Andres's point here. Easy to implement. Any objections?
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Andres Löh
| Sent: 23 August 2013 21:02
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
|
I'm +1 on changing the behavior. I find it probably the most confusing
aspect of using TypeHoles, which is otherwise great.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
I'm sympathetic to Andres's point here. Easy to implement. Any objections?
Simon
|
I have also seen this behaviour and support the change.
-KG
2013/8/27 Austin Seipp ase...@pobox.com
I'm +1 on changing the behavior. I find it probably the most confusing
aspect of using TypeHoles, which is otherwise great.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
I also say +1, but I am concerned about always showing all the bindings.
In my experiences over the years, the times when holes seem they would have
been most helpful is when the bindings were numerous and had large and
complicated types. Dumping all of the bindings in that sort of scenario
would
