I don't even want this feature. :-) The point being that datatype declarations, *as such*, are explicit anyhow. Why bother about the explicit quantifiers then? Of course, in a language with inferred datatypes I would mind. That's an interesting question!
I also wouldn't (yet?!) support this feature request because we will still confuse beginners, but that's just my feeling. Ralf > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Holdermans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:48 PM > To: Ralf Lammel > Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org; Benjamin Franksen > Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] pros and cons of static typing > andside effects ? > > Ralf, > > > Technically this is trivial it seems. I think that some people > > consider this proposal a problem because typos (misspelled type > > parameters) immediately lead to the accidental exploration of a more > > advanced type-system feature and correspondingly more involved error > > messages. Of course, the type checker could perhaps consider adding > > "Did you really mean to ...?". > > Well, okay, but as soon as the type checker starts to asking these > questions, I would immediately start adding the explicit quantifiers, > just to get rid of those annoying warning messages. ;) So one would we > also need to be able to control the behaviour of the type checker with > respect to these warnings by means of a compiler flag like > "fno-warn-on-implicit-existential-quantification". All of this is, of > course, still trivial. :) > > Have we thought about it enough to make it a feature request? > > Regards, > > Stefan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe