Hi, thanks for the recommendation. Am Mittwoch, den 20.12.2017, 20:35 +0000 schrieb Roman Leshchinskiy:
If we decide to discuss just the proposal as is, though, then I'd be weakly against the proposed syntax as it is too subtle for my taste and abuses familiar mathematical notation somewhat. I'd probably prefer something like:
type a -> t
I am not saying that the proposed “forall a ->” syntax is great, but I think it is still better than “type a -> …”. The reason is that we already use prefixing “type”, e.g. in export lists (“type Bool”), to say “this thing is a type” if there is ambiguity. So if anything, then ifThenElse :: Bool -> a -> a -> a should be also allowed to be written as ifThenElse :: type Bool -> a -> a -> a and hence, in consequence ifThenElse :: type Bool -> type a -> type a -> a In other words, “type foo” just clarifies “I mean the _type_ foo”. Can we get more input?
Because of this, my recommendation is to strongly encourage the author to submit an extended proposal which reserves (but doesn't specify the semantics of) the above syntax wholesale.
I’d be on board deciding on that syntax all in one go. Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/