Hi Max and Niklas, Thank you both for your answers. I get it now.
I didn't read carefully enough to note that the explicit type on F a b was the type of F and the type of F (although, in retrospect, this last interpretation wouldn't have worked as we would have need at least * -> * -> *). Thanks again. Cheers! -Tyson
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
