Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 06-Dec-1999, Alex Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Now that rank-2 polymorphism seems to be part of the 'received standard'
> > (at least two implementations support 'em, and I assume they're
> a shoo-in
> > for Haskell 2), couldn't we really also do with type application?
> > It seems that ambiguity is here to stay in Haskell, and in principle
> > R2L makes the situation (at least as regards "uninferability") worse.
> > But it also provides at least a partial solution: when one has to
> > disambiguate a subexpression, as opposed to a top-level def., in several
> > cases I've been bitten by, it would have been more concise to remove
> > the ambiguity with a type-ap, than by supplying a complete signature.
> >
> > I'd suggest a syntax for this, but I shall refrain, on account of
> > a) not having thought of one, and b) having an uneasy feeling I've
> > missed something obvious and am about to have this suggestion shot
> > down in flames.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by type application in this context.
> Could you explain in more detail what you mean, or give some reference?
I think he means the application term associated with second-order lambda
calculus' "big lambda," usually written "M [T]" or just "M T" where M is a
value term and T is a type term, e.g., "(/\X.\x.x) Int 3".
If not, I misunderstood Alex's post too.
--FAC
