Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"

Merijn Verstraaten <[email protected]> Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:26:24 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.lang.haskell.glasgow.user
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

> On 18 Sep 2021, at 04:29, Anthony Clayden <[email protected]> wrote:
> "InstanceSigs is a mis-feature. Don't use it. It is less confusing to just give no signature at all. If you really, really want to bind tyvars, use PatternSignatures."

I would strongly disagree with this statement. I think instance signatures are a perfectly fine feature for the very simple case of "I want type signatures on my bindings, because I've got better stuff to do than memorising signatures or doing type inference in my head."

Does that mean they are superfluous, as your initial email suggests? Well, kinda, in the same way that "adding type signatures to top level bindings" is *technically* superfluous, but I still have those on all my top level bindings.

Characterising the extension as a miss-feature in the user guide seems weird for a perfectly usable and useful extension.

Cheers,
Merijn

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)