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 On 11/22/20 6:23 AM, Andrey Mokhov wrote:
Hi Richard,
In the end, I've never loved the forall ... -> syntax, but I've never seen anything better. What about the forall @a. syntax?
For example:
sizeOf :: forall @a. Sized a => Int
We already use @ to explicitly specify types, so it seems natural mark type parameters that must be explicitly specified with @ too.
Here's how one would read it: "for all explicitly specified a, ..."
Apologies if this has been discussed and I missed it. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Alternatives section of the proposal but perhaps it will just never work for some reason.
Cheers, Andrey
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs