theory syntax should allow type declarations

[jwaldmann]

Not a bug. But I'd appreciate hints on how this feature could be implemented (relative to the current code base) most easily.

I want to write

inorder :: Tree a -> List a

right next to the actual definitions (current parser simply rejects this). For my own sanity, for documentation, and because I recommend this coding style to my students.

[larsrh]

Do you want the type signatures to be actually checked? Or do they merely have documentation status?

[jwaldmann]

Checked. Cyp does type inference anyway?

[larsrh]

No. Cyp is completely untyped.

[jwaldmann]

Ah, I see.

[larsrh]

I just found this: haskell-tc. So it could be implemented. But I don't see myself having the time to do it 😦

[jwaldmann]

Sure. I was not implying that you should to it. Also, we don't need full Haskell typing here, plain Hindley-Milner will do.