This has the problem that kind is currently a valid function name, so it
would take a new keyword, or at least on conditional on the DataKinds
extension.
-Edward
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Erik Hesselink wrote:
> When we discussed this last time (summarized by the link Pedro sent, I
>> th
>
> 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 se
rote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Ross Paterson 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
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Ross Paterson 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
>
T
See http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GhcKinds/KindsWithoutData
Cheers,
Pedro
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Ross Paterson 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
&g
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
