On Jul26, Stefan O'Rear wrote: > > So, this syntax affects a lot of code, existing or otherwise, that > > doesn't use view patterns, which is something we're trying to avoid. > > Eh? I *think* the typing rules are the same for the no-view case. If > the auto-deriving hack isn't implemented, you only need a > deriving(View), otherwise there should be no change at all...
Assuming you don't have the functional dependency: "affects" in the sense that any code you write has a generalized type, so you have to explain view patterns to beginners right out of the gate, etc. If you write length [] = [] length (h : t) = 1 + length t we don't want to have to explain to beginners why it has type length :: forall a,b,c. View a [b] -> a -> Num c -Dan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
