Not a bad idea; and easy to implement given syntax that everyone is happy with. In SPECIALISE pragmas the type is inside the pragma, and this is a variant of `SPECIALISE`.
Indeed, maybe it ''is'' `SPECIALISE`, except that GHC might notice that
#11765: Allow documentary type signatures -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: dfeuer | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.2.1 Component: Compiler (Type | Version: 7.10.3 checker) | Resolution: | Keywords: 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 dfeuer): Replying to [comment:1 simonpj]: there was nothing to be gained from specialising and so discard the code and rule. It's certainly quite similar! It sometimes declines to generate code/rules (insufficient specialization, too complicated), and here we'd probably prefer to skip generation rather than generate and discard. But it seems likely that machinery could be shared. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11765#comment:2 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler