G'day all.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:24:10AM -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I'm slowly getting around to this. Design questions:
>
> (A) I think it would be a good compromise to declare that operators
> like "+" are type *constructors* not type *variables*. So
> S+T
> would be a type. That's slightly inconsistent with value variables,
> but it's jolly useful. So only alphabetic things would be type
> variables.
While we're at it, could we have infix notation for type classes too?
class (a * b) c | a b -> c where
(*) :: a -> b -> c
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
