What you mean "could we get", add to base or be able to define? I think you can: {-# LANGUAGE GADTs, RankNTypes, KindSignatures, PolyKinds, ConstraintKinds #-} import Data.Kind import Type.Reflection data Dict (c :: Constraint) where Dict :: c => Dict c kindable :: forall {k} (a :: k). Typeable a => Dict (Typeable (a :: k)) kindable = Dict works? Or am I missing something? Also isn't TypeRep a from Type.Reflection the same as Dict (Typeable a) for all practical purposes, `kindable = Type.Reflection.typeRep`, yet better? kindable' :: forall {k} (a :: k). Typeable a => TypeRep a kindable' = typeRep - Oleg On 23.8.2023 13.50, Tom Ellis wrote:
Morally I think that
class Typeable (a :: k)
should have been
class Typeable k => Typeable (a :: k)
If I'm wrong, could someone please elaborate why? If I'm right, please read on ...
That would be a breaking change, but could we at least get
kindable :: forall (a :: k). Typeable a => Dict (Typable (a :: k))
in the meantime?
Tom _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.