Agreed, if there are not technical issues, I would expect this to work, so I am +1 On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:32 PM Richard Eisenberg wrote:

This proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/80) introduces type-level type applications, extending the existing TypeApplications syntax to work in types.

- With -XTypeApplications, you will be able to instantiate kind variables in types. For example, you could talk about `Proxy @(Type -> Type) Maybe` and `Category @(TYPE IntRep) (->)` or even `(->) @(TYPE LiftedRep) @(TYPE DoubleRep)`.

And that's it! GHC *already* has the required/specified/inferred distinction in terms, which is unchanged in types.

I believe strongly we should accept. There was no substantive dissenting commentary, just clarifying questions.

Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

I support this one. Simon From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg Sent: 23 February 2018 20:32 To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Type-level type applications (#80): Recommend accept This proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/80) introduces type-level type applications, extending the existing TypeApplications syntax to work in types. - With -XTypeApplications, you will be able to instantiate kind variables in types. For example, you could talk about `Proxy @(Type -> Type) Maybe` and `Category @(TYPE IntRep) (->)` or even `(->) @(TYPE LiftedRep) @(TYPE DoubleRep)`. And that's it! GHC *already* has the required/specified/inferred distinction in terms, which is unchanged in types. I believe strongly we should accept. There was no substantive dissenting commentary, just clarifying questions. Thanks, Richard

Hi, Am Freitag, den 23.02.2018, 15:32 -0500 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:

I believe strongly we should accept. There was no substantive dissenting commentary, just clarifying questions.

Clear and vocal consensus observed, accepted. Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/