> On Dec 3, 2020, at 11:11 AM, Bryan Richter <b...@chreekat.net> wrote:
>
> I must be confused, because it sounds like you are contradicting yourself. :)
> In one sentence you say that there is no assumed universal quantification
> going on, and in the next you say that the function does indeed work for all
> types. Isn't that the definition of universal quantification?
I agree with Vlad's comment here: There *is* universal quantification here, but
there is not *implicit* universal quantification, as it's *explicit*. You've
made the universal quantification with your `forall a ->`.
Richard
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
