> On Dec 3, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Bryan Richter <b...@chreekat.net> wrote:
>
> Consider `forall a -> a -> a`. There's still an implicit universal
> quantification that is assumed, right?
No, there isn't, and I think this is the central point of confusion. A function
of type `forall a -> a -> a` does work for all types `a`. So I think the
keyword is appropriate. The only difference is that we must state what `a` is
explicitly. I thus respectfully disagree with
> But somewhere, an author decided to reuse the same keyword to herald a type
> argument. It seems they stopped thinking about the meaning of the word
> itself, saw that it was syntactically in the right spot, and borrowed it to
> mean something else.
Does this help clarify? And if it does, is there a place you can direct us to
where the point could be made more clearly? I think you're far from the only
one who has tripped here.
Richard
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
