Regarding the quantification: in ML (OCaml) we can write
let foo (x:'a) y = (x+1,(y:'a))
That does not mean that foo has the type forall 'a. 'a - 'a - ...
Type annotations in OCaml are completely broken and always have been.
They use 'unifies with' instead of 'is an instance of' and it
The analogous declaration in *Standard* ML, which gets this right, is
fun 'a foo (x:'a) y = (x + 1, (y:'a))
Following up my own post, I thought it might be kind to explain the
arcana of the SML syntax. The explicit 'a between 'fun' and 'foo' is
SML syntax for an explicit type-lambda (or
Norman Ramsey wrote:
compile1 :: (Builder b box) = t - Name - Ir.ANF - b t
compile1 f x body = do env - compile body empty
wire (Arg W) (env x)
return f
class (Monad b) = Builder b box where
wire::
Or, one may use the local type variable to the same end
compile1 :: forall b t box. (Builder b box) = t - Name - Ir.ANF - b
t compile1 f x body = do env - compile body empty
wire ((Arg W)::Source box) (env x)
return f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid I may disagree about the quantification. Also, I'm cautious
about the phrase ML and Haskell. In GHC 6.4, local type variables
behave pretty much like those in ML (actually, GHC 6.2 was closer). In
GHC 6.6, the behavior is completely different!
Regarding
