On Sun, 22 Dec 2013, Gábor Lehel wrote:
Other than beingA. displayed in the Haddocks will this syntax also, now or at any later point, be B. explicitly written by the programmer alongside the definition of the pattern, or C. used as a type argument for other types?
A and B.
If it's only A and B, perhaps abominations like these could be considered: -- implicit foralls pattern Show t => P t :: (Num t, Eq b) => b -> T t -- explicit foralls pattern forall t. Show t => P t :: forall b. (Num t, Eq b) => b -> T t
I'm not 100% sure what that 't' in 'P t' is supposed to be in your example. 'P' is not like a type constructor at all; it's a lot more like a data constructor.
-- .--= ULLA! =-----------------. \ http://gergo.erdi.hu \ `---= ge...@erdi.hu =-------' I know KUNG FU, KARATE and 47 other dangerous words.
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
