22 Nov
2020
22 Nov
'20
6:23 a.m.
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