Hi all,
Following the discussion on the use of 'forall' and extensions that
use it [1], I would hereby like to propose that the
ExistentialQuantification extension is deprecated.
My rationale is as follows. With the introduction of GADTs, we now
have two ways to write datatype declarations, the
Hi,
I agree this is annoying. It was hard to find syntax which was both
meaningful and currently unused, so we settled on this instead. As
Simon says, suggestions are welcome!
Note that group *should* be parsed as a special id, so you can still
import D.L qualified and then use dot notation to
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Niklas Brobergniklas.brob...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Following the discussion on the use of 'forall' and extensions that
use it [1], I would hereby like to propose that the
ExistentialQuantification extension is deprecated.
My rationale is as follows. With
Niklas Broberg wrote:
data Foo =
forall a . Show a = Foo a
which uses ExistentialQuantification syntax, could be written as
data Foo where
Foo :: forall a . Show a = a - Foo
The downside is that we lose one level of granularity in the type
system. GADTs enables a lot more
I would hereby like to propose that the
ExistentialQuantification extension is deprecated.
It is worth pointing out that all current Haskell implementations (to
my knowledge) have ExistentialQuantification, whilst there is only one
Haskell implementation that has the proposed replacement
I would hereby like to propose that the
ExistentialQuantification extension is deprecated.
It is worth pointing out that all current Haskell implementations (to my
knowledge) have ExistentialQuantification, whilst there is only one Haskell
implementation that has the proposed replacement
On Jun 27, 2009, at 15:37 , Niklas Broberg wrote:
* NewConstructorSyntax: Lets the programmer write data types using the
GADTs *syntax*, but doesn't add any type-level power (and no forall
syntax). Could probably use a better name (bikeshed warning).
GeneralizedTypeSyntax occurs to me.
--
