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:john.ericson@obsidian.systems] Sent: 22 November 2020 16:41 To: Andrey Mokhov <andrey.mokhov@newcastle.ac.uk>; Richard Eisenberg <rae@richarde.dev> Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org 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