Brian Hulley wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:f :: (forall a m. a -> m a) -> c -> d -> (m c, m d)The above is wrong - there is no way to quantify m properly. This must be why intersection types need to be written with "&" after all....
What am I saying! It's right after all, and might be better than the & syntax because it makes the dependency clearer (assuming you can't write a function that is both Int->String and Float->Int)
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
