Hi John,
> - We are already getting `forall {a}.`, so it fits nicely with that.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of this. Could you point me to the relevant
proposal?
> - However, it would have to be `forall @a ->`,
Oh, that seems even worse than `forall a ->` to me.
> because `forall a.` is already an invisible quantification,
> unless one wants to just change the meaning of `forall a.`!
I'm confused. I wasn't suggesting to change the meaning of `forall a.`.
My suggestion was pretty incremental:
* `forall a.` stays as is: it allows for both invisible and visible type
arguments.
* `forall @a.` requires a visible type argument.
Cheers,
Andrey
-----Original Message-----
From: John Ericson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 22 November 2020 16:41
To: Andrey Mokhov <[email protected]>; Richard Eisenberg
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Use of forall as a sigil
I have thought about this too, and don't believe it has been widely
discussed.
- We are already getting `forall {a}.`, so it fits nicely with that.
- However, it would have to be `forall @a ->`, because `forall a.` is
already an invisible quantification, unless one wants to just change the
meaning of `forall a.`!
John
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
