Niklas Broberg wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
On ExistentialQuantification, I personally think we should deprecate the entire construct, suggesting GADT-style syntax instead.
+1, though I was afraid to suggest something that radical. I might write a separate proposal for that then, to keep the discussion here focused on ExplicitForall.
+1. There's the minor quibble that ExistentialQuantification is weaker and so using full GADT syntax allows writing types that can't fit into ExistentialQuantification. But I think removing the current wart is much better than introducing this minor one.
If you can form a consensus, go for it.
Alright, let's set an actual discussion period of 2 weeks for ExplicitForall. If there is no opposition by then, we can add ExplicitForall to the registered extensions in cabal as a first step.
+1 to adding an ExplicitForall syntactic language pragma, as per your proposal (which implicitly enables it when using a semantic/type pragma that requires it). -- Live well, ~wren