> Probably unrelated, but this thread is what triggered it for me.
> There is a minor bug in showing impredicative types without
> -fglasgow-exts: *hope I got that right*
>
> Prelude> let x = [] :: [forall a. a]
>
> :1:23:
> Warning: Accepting non-standard infix type constructor `.'
>
; HEAD, see our ICFP06 paper.
>
> Simon
>
> | -Original Message-
> | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil
> | Mitchell
> | Sent: 03 July 2006 19:44
> | To: Haskell Cafe
> | Subject: [Haskell-cafe] forall and a parse error
> |
>
On 03/07/06, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[1,2] /= [(1,2)]
Ah, I figured we were talking at the type level.
--
-David House, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/
r ICFP06 paper.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil
| Mitchell
| Sent: 03 July 2006 19:44
| To: Haskell Cafe
| Subject: [Haskell-cafe] forall and a parse error
|
| Hi,
|
| I was experimenting with forall and higher rank types
On 7/3/06, David House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 03/07/06, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In normal Haskell, I tend to view [x] as equivalent to [(x)] (provided
> that x is not a tuple) but in this case it has a different meaning -
> albeit both are erronous meanings.
How would t
On 03/07/06, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In normal Haskell, I tend to view [x] as equivalent to [(x)] (provided
that x is not a tuple) but in this case it has a different meaning -
albeit both are erronous meanings.
How would tuples make a difference?
--
-David House, [EMAIL PROTE
Hi,
I was experimenting with forall and higher rank types briefly, in particular:
x :: [forall a . a]
This is illegal because of:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/type-extensions.html#universal-quantification
Which is fine, however its surprising to compare the error mes
