Patrik Jansson:
> I like ? better than .., but maybe the Haskell "don't care"-symbol _
> could be even more suggesting:
>
> q :: a -> _ -> c
> q a _ = c
>
> Syntactically this is closer to what is currently allowed as type
> variables and it would easily (in the sense that such a production is in
> the grammar already, while ? is an operator character) extend to "named
> meta variables" _a, _b and so on.
I definitely like this syntax better than the proposed alternatives;
I was thinking along similar lines myself earlier today. Therefore it
must be good. ;-)
Cheers,
Alex.
