I wrote:
What I don't like is that given a signature like
x :: a -> a
there's no way to tell, looking at it in isolation, whether a is free or
bound in the type. [...]
Here's a completely different idea for solving this. It occurs to me that
there isn't all that much difference between capitalized and lowercase
identifiers in the type language. One set is for type constants and the
other for type variables, but one man's variable is another man's constant,
as the epigram goes. In Haskell 98 type signatures, the difference between
them is precisely that type variables are bound within the type, and type
constants are bound in the environment.
Maybe scoped type variables should be capitalized. At the usage point this
definitely makes sense: you really shouldn't care whether the thing you're
pulling in from the environment was bound at the top level or in a nested
scope. And implicit quantification does the right thing.
As for binding, I suppose the simplest solution would be explicit
quantification of the capitalized variables, e.g.
f :: forall N. [N] -> ...
f x = ...
or
f (x :: exists N. [N]) = ...
Really, the latter binding should be in the pattern, not in the type
signature, but that's trickier (from a purely syntactic standpoint).
What do people think of this? I've never seen anyone suggest capitalized
type variables before, but it seems to make sense.
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
