| -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 briefly, in
particular
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
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
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
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 tuples
