Skip to content

Conversation

jamesdbrock
Copy link
Contributor

This reverts commit 878390c.

This reverts #388

@jamesdbrock
Copy link
Contributor Author

Here's the reversion PR, if you decide that you want to revert.

@JordanMartinez
Copy link
Contributor

@hdgarrood Why don't we use "has kind Type" rather than "at kind Type"?

- To give meaningful types to those functions, it might be useful to define a type `Frob` at kind `Type`.
+ To give meaningful types to those functions, it might be useful to define a type `Frob` that has kind `Type`.

@hdgarrood
Copy link
Collaborator

That works too

@JordanMartinez
Copy link
Contributor

@jamesdbrock Which rendering makes more sense to you. The original one to which this PR reverts or the rendering I provided above?

@jamesdbrock
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jamesdbrock Which rendering makes more sense to you. The original one to which this PR reverts or the rendering I provided above?

I like yours.

@JordanMartinez
Copy link
Contributor

Then let's go with the "has kind Type" rendering.

@JordanMartinez JordanMartinez merged commit 7f850dc into purescript:master Jun 4, 2022
@jamesdbrock jamesdbrock deleted the jamesdbrock/patch-2 branch June 5, 2022 02:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants