Simon, et. al, forall tends to be used with one argument, hence the reason its not really biting right now. If no-one objects, I'll change it this week at some point, to match GHC. The "lambda does not use comma" seems convincing to me. Andy -----Original Message----- From: hugs-bugs-admin@haskell.org [mailto:hugs-bugs-admin@haskell.org]On Behalf Of Simon Peyton-Jones Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 12:16 PM To: hugs-bugs@haskell.org Cc: simonpj@microsoft.com Subject: 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 _______________________________________________ Hugs-Bugs mailing list Hugs-Bugs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-bugs