On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:31:17PM +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> I think they are equally feasible, but as Simon says, we have avoided
> introducing new global keywords.
> And I think we should avoid it this time too. Why break programs when we
> don't have to.
I've added an alternative delt
I think they are equally feasible, but as Simon says, we have avoided
introducing new global keywords.
And I think we should avoid it this time too. Why break programs when we
don't have to.
-- Lennart
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:46:29AM +0
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:46:29AM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I don't think it's feasible to allow 'case' as a type
> variable, but it's certainly feasible to allow 'forall' as a term
> variable.
Why is 'case'-only-in-expression harder than 'forall'-only-in-type?
> On the other hand, it ma
On 22/11/10 11:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi Iavor,
Thanks for your comments.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:25:38PM -0800, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
* Why is "forall" promoted to a keyword, rather then just being
special in types as is in all implementations? I like the current
status quo where "forall
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:36:51PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
>
> P.S. IMHO capitalization, ExplicitForAll vs ExplicitForall, let's stick
> to one. The extension is written ExplicitForall.
GHC only knows about ExplicitForAll. I think this was a mistake, but I
don't think it's worth changing now
On 11/22/10 06:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:25:38PM -0800, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
* It seems that allowing "superflous" values in "foralls" could be
useful for some future extensions. For example, if we had scoped type
variables and explicit type application, then it may make
Hi Iavor,
Thanks for your comments.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:25:38PM -0800, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>
> * Why is "forall" promoted to a keyword, rather then just being
> special in types as is in all implementations? I like the current
> status quo where "forall" can still be used in value exp
Hello,
I have no strong feelings for or against allowing explicit foralls in
types but I have a few questions/suggestions on the proposal in its
current form (21 Nov 2010):
* Why is "forall" promoted to a keyword, rather then just being
special in types as is in all implementations? I like the cu
Hi all,
I've completed the ExplicitForAll proposal, started by Niklas Broberg
(but any errors are doubtless mine!):
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ExplicitForall
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/133
I imagine this is too late for H2011 (if that will actua
