Re: Proposal: Don't require users to use undefined

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 07:43:13AM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

It's only a matter of time before we have explicit type applications. Indeed, the principal difficulty is *syntax*. (My "@" notation above might just work; because "@" is already unavailable as an operator.)

Drifting off-topic, but wouldn't we want to be able to use similar syntax to bind types too? e.g. f ((Just @ t) x) = (Right @ String @ t) x but @ is unavailable in patterns. Thanks Ian