On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Niklas Brobergniklas.brob...@gmail.com wrote:
Alright, let's set an actual discussion period of 2 weeks for
ExplicitForall. If there is no opposition by then, we can add
ExplicitForall to the registered extensions in cabal as a first step.
Slightly more than
Alright, let's set an actual discussion period of 2 weeks for
ExplicitForall. If there is no opposition by then, we can add
ExplicitForall to the registered extensions in cabal as a first step.
Slightly more than two weeks later, there has been no voices against
and at least a few in favor.
| I would thus like to propose the following formalisation of the
| ExplicitForall extension:
What you suggest would be fine with me. Presumably ExplicitForall would be
implied by RankNTypes and the other extensions?
There is a danger of having too *many* choices.
What you suggest would be fine with me. Presumably ExplicitForall would be
implied by RankNTypes and the other extensions?
Yes, that's the idea. Rank2Types, RankNTypes, PolymorphicComponents,
ScopedTypeVariables and LiberalTypeSynonyms would all imply
ExplicitForall.
There is a danger of
Hi all,
(I'm writing this to several lists since it involves GHC
(implementation of extensions), cabal (registration of extensions) and
some future Haskell standard (formalisation of extensions).)
In my quest to implement all known syntactic extensions to Haskell in
my haskell-src-exts package,
