Once you guys have reached consensus on appropriate revised wording for this
issue, I'll happily apply the changes to the Haskell 2012 Report as a bugfix.
Regards,
Malcolm
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
For example, section 3.13 ends with the note:
case x of { (a,_) | let b = not a in b :: Bool - a }
... Programmers are advised, therefore, to avoid guards that
end with a type signature.
I would support changing a type signature to an expression type
signature in this note
At Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:02:33 +0100,
Paterson, Ross wrote:
There is no a priori reason why b should depend on a in a pair of
bindings such as these:
a = const (\x - x) b
b = const (a :: Int - Int) (a :: Bool - Bool)
There is: section 3.16 says that in an expression type
The Haskell 2010 report contains ambiguous and sometimes contradictory
definitions of the terms simple pattern binding and declaration
group. The confusion is compounded by the phrasing of the
monomorphism restriction, which is carried over from the Haskell98
report in which a different
A recent thread on the haskell cafe mailing list summarizes the
problem:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2011-June/093488.html
To resolve this confusion, I propose applying the following changes to
the Haskell 2010 report for the next revision of the language:
I think
At Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:06:09 +0100,
Paterson, Ross wrote:
I don't believe the definition of depends in Section 4.5.1 needs
to change. The Report consistently uses expression type signature
for the expression and type signature for the declaration, so it is
clear that the latter is meant
