Re: Haskell Report 1.2

[Kevin Hammond]

> * Should gd -> exp^0 be changed back to gd -> exp?  PROVISIONAL DECISON: no.
> We made this choice at Mark Jones' suggestion, to allow us to write
> e::T Int rather than e::(T Int).  (I can't remember why this guard stuff
> is a consequence...  No action reqd.

I agree, if we don't do this, then 

        case e1 of
            p | g :: T -> T -> rhs

causes parsing problems.

Kevin