| Easier and less important: can't we allow _ as dummy type variable?
| It should have the usual 'each occurance is different' semantics, so
| that the most general type of
| > fst3 (a,_,_) = a
| could be expressed as
| > fst3 :: (a,_,_) -> a
| Or is it already allowed? I tried it with hugs right now, and it
| worked, but I don't see how this is justified by the syntax given in
| the 1.4 report.
It's a Hugs extension, and not justified by the syntax in the
1.4 report. You are one of the first people to notice it :-)
All the best,
Mark
