At Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:15:06 +0100, Paterson, Ross wrote:
True. That ambiguity could be avoided by adding the word "declaration" after "type signature".
On second thoughts, this is unnecessary. The Report consistently uses "expression type signature" for the expression and "type signature" for the declaration.
I already sent the haskell-prime mailing list a proposal for the following wording: A binding b1 depends on a binding b2 in the same list of declarations if either 1. b1 contains a free identifier v, v is bound by b2, and the list of declarations does not contain a type signature for v; or http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2011-June/003482.html I think this is clearer, but it might make more sense to discuss on haskell-prime. David