Jeff Lewis:
> I'm not sure what the parenthetical comment about the interpretation of a
means -
> take the definition at face value.
My point was: were they _intended_ to be same "a", or different? What
is "face value" is surely simply begging the question.
> It's not at all clear to me that people should expect the a's to be
> different - I can't think of a good rationale for it (aside from the "don't
break
> old code" argument, which, if that's the only argument, doesn't seem strong
enough
> to me).
For Standard Haskell at least, it ought to be a pretty strong argument.
I don't accept that the "a"'s being different is bizarre and inexplicable
-- up until the discussion of wanting to write these more restricted
types, I'd certainly never heard any criticism of it on those grounds.
Signatures and definitions were simply regarded as having quite separate
scopes.
Slainte,
Alex.
