Edward Z. Yang [mailto:ezy...@mit.edu]
| Sent: 14 June 2011 14:04
| To: glasgow-haskell-users; Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: Re: MonoLocalBinds and hoopl
|
| I ran into some more code like this, and I realized there was something
| pretty important: the majority of let-bindings do not have any free va
On 14 June 2011 14:28, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I must say I'm inclined to adopt this idea. Any comments from others?
This is something I suggested at the time you submitted "let should
not be generalised". I'm in favour of it, and from personal experience
believe that this will reduce the nu
In case it wasn't clear, I'd very much be in favor of implementing
this refinement.
Cheers,
Edward
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
2011 14:04
| To: glasgow-haskell-users; Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: Re: MonoLocalBinds and hoopl
|
| I ran into some more code like this, and I realized there was something
| pretty important: the majority of let-bindings do not have any free varaibles.
| They could very well be floated to the top lev
thers?
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Edward Z. Yang [mailto:ezy...@mit.edu]
| Sent: 14 June 2011 14:04
| To: glasgow-haskell-users; Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: Re: MonoLocalBinds and hoopl
|
| I ran into some more code like this, and I realized there was something
| pretty important
I ran into some more code like this, and I realized there was something
pretty important: the majority of let-bindings do not have any free varaibles.
They could very well be floated to the top level without having to make any
source level changes.
So maybe let should be generalized, if no free va
Hello,
Another design-pattern which sometimes works pretty well is to
encapsulate commonly used polymorphic types in ordinary data-types
(i.e., use the rank-2 style). Then, the data-type constructors provide
a quick way to---essentially---write a type signature. It seems that
this should work well
Yes, argument to higher rank functions are probably the top reason why
MonoLocalBinds is a nuisance.
As of now I think the best thing is to do (1), but define type synonyms that
abbreviate the oft-repeated signatures. That should make the signatures much
onerous.
Simon
| -Original Messa
