I'm supportive. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org> | On Behalf Of Eric Seidel | Sent: 06 February 2019 00:51 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] [Proposal] #193: Make `forall` a keyword | in type (recommendation: accept) | | This proposal suggests making `forall` a keyword at the type-level. | `forall` is currently only a keyword when `-XExplicitForAll` is enabled. | | This change would avoid a potentially confusing situation where the meaning | of a type can change based on which extensions are enabled. For example, | | ``` | f2 :: forall a -> a -> a | ``` | | with no extensions, the `forall a` would be interpreted as two regular type | variables. But if we enable the upcoming "visible dependent quantification" | extension (I assume there's an extension involved here somewhere, the | proposal doesn't say), the `forall a` would be interpreted as a *single* | dependently quantified type variable `a`. | | The only concerns are that this change could break existing programs, and | that it moves us further away from the standard. I'd be very suspicious of | any programs that used `forall` as a type variable, as that's just ripe for | confusion. And it's a very small step away from the standard, so I don't | think that should stand in the proposal's way either. | | I recommend we accept the proposal. | | _______________________________________________ | ghc-steering-committee mailing list | ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee