Dear forall ghc-devs. ghc-devs, As I read through the "Visible 'forall' in types of terms" proposal[1], I stumbled over something that isn't relevant to the proposal itself, so I thought I would bring it here. Given f :: forall a. a -> a (1) I intuitively understand the 'forall' in (1) to represent the phrase "for all". I would read (1) as "For all objects a in Hask, f is some relation from a to a." After reading the proposal, I think my intuition may be wrong, since I discovered `forall a ->`. This means something similar to, but practically different from, `forall a.`. Thus it seems like 'forall' is now simply used as a sigil to represent "here is where some special parameter goes". It could as well be an emoji. What's more, the practical difference between the two forms is *only* distinguished by ` ->` versus `.`. That's putting quite a lot of meaning into a rather small number of pixels, and further reduces any original connection to meaning that 'forall' might have had. I won't object to #281 based only on existing syntax, but I *do* object to the existing syntax. :) Is this a hopeless situation, or is there any possibility of bringing back meaning to the syntax of "dependent quantifiers"? -Bryan [1]: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/281