> 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
> 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
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
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
http://www.haskell.
