I think they are equally feasible, but as Simon says, we have avoided introducing new global keywords.<div>And I think we should avoid it this time too.  Why break programs when we don&#39;t have to.</div><div><br></div><div>
  -- Lennart<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Ian Lynagh <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:igloo@earth.li">igloo@earth.li</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:46:29AM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I don&#39;t think it&#39;s feasible to allow &#39;case&#39; as a type<br>
&gt; variable, but it&#39;s certainly feasible to allow &#39;forall&#39; as a term<br>
&gt; variable.<br>
<br>
</div>Why is &#39;case&#39;-only-in-expression harder than &#39;forall&#39;-only-in-type?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
&gt; On the other hand, it makes life difficult for syntax highlighters.<br>
<br>
</div>Yup.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<font color="#888888">Ian<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-prime mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-prime@haskell.org">Haskell-prime@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>