On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 01:17:02PM +0000, Ross Paterson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 12:46:31PM -0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > > On 17 November 2005 12:45, Ross Paterson wrote: > > | I think the H98 rule is arbitrarily restrictive. But what about > > | going further and considering the occurrences of type constructors > > | in instance declarations, type signature declarations and expression > > | type signatures? > > > > one could. but GHC doesn't. feels low prio to me... > > It would probably not make many more practical programs legal, but it > would be less arbitrary and easier to explain.
explicit kinds allow you to type everything that this would make legal right? John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users