25 Jan
2010
25 Jan
'10
3:43 p.m.
Hi Max and Niklas, Thank you both for your answers. I get it now. I didn't read carefully enough to note that the explicit type on F a b was the type of F and the type of F (although, in retrospect, this last interpretation wouldn't have worked as we would have need at least * -> * -> *). Thanks again. Cheers! -Tyson