I'm assuming your `:: ...` in comment:3 are meant to be inferred, not
Then yes. And your final example in comment:3 should most certainly be allowed; ...
And I agree with all your examples in comment:4 except, possibly, the last. But it's probably just simpler to accept the last example along with
#11385: Unify named wildcards in different type applications -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: Iceland_jack | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler (Type | Version: 8.1 checker) | Keywords: Resolution: | NamedWildCards TypeApplications Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by Iceland_jack): Replying to [comment:5 goldfire]: part of what the user writes. Yes Replying to [comment:5 goldfire]: the others.
... But I think it's all OK.
Great! -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11385#comment:6 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler