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