Closed stylewarning closed 4 years ago
I wonder if a ML-style (-> ((a Liszt)) a)
might be a better choice for type expressions rather than the Haskell-like (-> ((Liszt a)) a)
. Generic function specializers already have the variable before its associated type, although the type there isn't exactly the same sort of thing as this use-case.
@fiddlerwoaroof Perhaps, but I do like the fact that Liszt
can be seen as a function on types.
Some random thoughts:
((Liszt a) -> a)
(fn (Liszt a) -> a)
fixed since syntax changed to (fn (liszt a) -> a)
This is a usability issue, not a technical one. The proper way to write the type as of writing is
(-> ((Liszt t)) t)
, but it will certainly trip people up.