> If we could only figure out a good syntax for
> (optional) type application, it would deal rather nicely with many of
> these cases. Trouble is, '<..>' gets confused with comparisons. And
> when there are multiple foralls, it's not obvious what order to supply
> the type parameters.
What about
mantissa (| Double |) + 4 ?
Order: left to right as they appear in the quantifier or else (more
heavy-weight) several special brackets (curried foralls)
... sequence (| \ b . ST b MyState |) (| Int |) ...
So we can write
... sequence ... all foralls are implicit
... sequence (| \ b . ST b MyState |) ... the second forall is implicit
but not
... sequence (| Int |) ... the first forall is implicit
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
