For me, the problem with `forall @a .` is that it seems to go in the wrong direction: parameters declared with @ must not have @ when passed, and parameters declared without @ must have a @ if the parameter is passed explicitly.
However, if we say that @ makes a thing that is normally implicit explicit, maybe it works? Richard > On Nov 22, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Andrey Mokhov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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
