Forall syntax

Dear Huggy people, I've just noticed that Hugs uses slightly different syntax than GHC for explicit for-alls in types. In Hugs you say forall a,b,c. ...type.... In GHC you say forall a b c. ...type... It's a pity to have unnecessary syntactic differences. Could we make them the same? I'd like to suggest that GHC is more consistent with the rest of Haskell. At the term level we don't use commas when we quantify: \ a b c -> .... not \ a,b,c -> ..... It's a pretty easy change to make. What think you? Simon