Nathan Faubion

I think this discussion can be reframed under type applications. I don't think we should bring dependent types into the discussion. My preference is something along these lines (which is...

> I’m trying to understand what you’re proposing here exactly. Can you give an example of usage to make it more clear? ```purescript -- `sym` is allowed to be ambiguous...

Similar to https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0099-explicit-specificity.rst, but the inverse and different syntax.

It would allow you to write: ```purescript view (prop @"foo") foo ``` PolyKinds is an orthogonal feature, unrelated to visible type applications.

> The idea that @feither binds f or references f depending on whether f is in scope already is very unsettling to me. I don't have any kind of solid...

> Rules-lawyering from the above, foo [] would be inferred to have the type forall @b. IsSymbol b => Int -> String, because that's how existing foralls work—the a is...

I would be in favor of this as long as there is a tool that can perform the necessary package resolution and update our source trees 😄.

I think the error is expected. It's a similar issue to https://discourse.purescript.org/t/on-partial-and-composition/1500. Under the point-free code it's not clear where you would insert the constraint elaboration for `ParserError e`. Making...

Eta-expansion can have a pretty drastic effect on evaluation in a strict language. For example, at one point we had an optimization that accidentally eta-expanded point-free compositions, changing the termination...

I'm not sure how to make it better, honestly. Eta-expansion is not a universal solution to `Could not match constrained type`.