RE: more detailed explanation about forall in Haskell

[Peter Douglass]

Frank Atanassow wrote:
 
> However, I think maybe it has demonstrated that the implicit 
> forall'ing in
> Haskell can be confusing in practice. In particular, it makes 
> it hard to talk
> unambiguously about types of non-top-level definitions/terms.

I'm sure this pot has been stirred up enough already, but as a newbie to
Haskell I also found the "forall" rules counter-intuitive with regard to
exitential types.  (i.e. the use of forall a. when exists a. might have been
clearer.)  I hope that at some point this area of Haskell will be revised.
--Peter Douglass