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
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
, 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
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
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
