I have thought about this too, and don't believe it has been widely
discussed.
- We are already getting `forall {a}.`, so it fits nicely with that.
- However, it would have to be `forall @a ->`, because `forall a.` is
already an invisible quantification, unless one wants to just change the
meaning of `forall a.`!
John
On 11/22/20 6:23 AM, Andrey Mokhov wrote:
Hi Richard,
In the end, I've never loved the forall ... -> syntax, but I've never seen
anything better.
What about the forall @a. syntax?
For example:
sizeOf :: forall @a. Sized a => Int
We already use @ to explicitly specify types, so it seems natural mark type
parameters that must be explicitly specified with @ too.
Here's how one would read it: "for all explicitly specified a, ..."
Apologies if this has been discussed and I missed it. It doesn't seem to be
mentioned in the Alternatives section of the proposal but perhaps it will just
never work for some reason.
Cheers,
Andrey
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
