On 2003-06-08 at 18:03PDT Ashley Yakeley wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter G. Hancock) wrote: > > Thanks! It made me wonder what colour the sky is on planet Haskell. > > From a Curry-Howard point of view, (I think) the quantifiers are > > currently the wrong way round. It is actually painful! > > Well don't forget the other one: > > data MyType1 = forall a. MkMyType1 a; > > data MyType2 = MkMyType2 (forall a. a); > > You can put anything in a MyType1, but only something of type (forall a. > a) such as "undefined" in a MyType2.
I'm not sure I understand your implication. After the proposed change you'd have to write: > data MyType1 = exists a. MkMyType1 a; > > data MyType2 = MkMyType2 (forall a. a); to get the same effect, and we'd have that > data MyType1a = MkMyType1a (exists a . a) would be (bar alpha) equivalent to MyType1, and (after a suitable grace period) > data MyType2a = forall a . MkMyType2a a would be like MyType2, which all seems much more reasonable than the present notation. -- J�n Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 31 Chalmers Road [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge CB1 3SZ +44 1223 570179 (after 14:00 only, please!) _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
