Dear Huggy people,
I've just noticed that Hugs uses slightly different
syntax than GHC for explicit for-alls in types.
In Hugs you say
forall a,b,c. ...type....
In GHC you say
forall a b c. ...type...
It's a pity to have unnecessary syntactic differences.
Could we make them the same?
I'd like to suggest that GHC is more consistent with
the rest of Haskell. At the term level we don't use
commas when we quantify:
\ a b c -> .... not \ a,b,c -> .....
It's a pretty easy change to make. What think you?
Simon
_______________________________________________
Hugs-Bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-bugs
