<div dir="ltr">Agreed, if there are not technical issues, I would expect this to work, so I am +1<div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:32 PM Richard Eisenberg <<a href="mailto:rae@cs.brynmawr.edu">rae@cs.brynmawr.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">This proposal (<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/80" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/80</a>) introduces type-level type applications, extending the existing TypeApplications syntax to work in types.<div><br></div><div>- With -XTypeApplications, you will be able to instantiate kind variables in types. For example, you could talk about `Proxy @(Type -> Type) Maybe` and `Category @(TYPE IntRep) (->)` or even `(->) @(TYPE LiftedRep) @(TYPE DoubleRep)`.</div><div><br></div><div>And that's it! GHC *already* has the required/specified/inferred distinction in terms, which is unchanged in types.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe strongly we should accept. There was no substantive dissenting commentary, just clarifying questions.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Richard</div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br>
</blockquote></div>