There are times when you wish you had dynamic typing, but this is usually a fault of the type system and there are better answers than ripping the type system out entirely, once you ascend to a mathematical way of looking at it.
Suppose for example, that you wanted an existentially qualified list, something like forall a. Ord a => [a], and to be able to mix variables of different concrete types in that list. Well it's a slight pain to do that right now.
This goes back to the classic adage, the answer to broken maths is... MOAR MATHS!
Anyway, I would like a switch that would let you do that, even if it means adding a type sig. A better switch might be a LANGUAGE pragma, because this is one of those things you either really don't want at all, or you want it really badly.
> There are times when you wish you had dynamic typing, but this is usually a fault of the type system and there are better answers than ripping the type system out entirely, once you ascend to a mathematical way of looking at it.
Indeed. Having a static typed language means that you are tied to a single static-typing system. OTOH, I guess you could apply different type checkers to the same dynamically-typed program.
Suppose for example, that you wanted an existentially qualified list, something like forall a. Ord a => [a], and to be able to mix variables of different concrete types in that list. Well it's a slight pain to do that right now.
This goes back to the classic adage, the answer to broken maths is... MOAR MATHS!
Anyway, I would like a switch that would let you do that, even if it means adding a type sig. A better switch might be a LANGUAGE pragma, because this is one of those things you either really don't want at all, or you want it really badly.