<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Sounds good to me!<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 24.02.2018 um 07:32 schrieb Richard Eisenberg <<a href="mailto:rae@cs.brynmawr.edu" class="">rae@cs.brynmawr.edu</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">This proposal (<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/80" class="">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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- 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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And that's it! GHC *already* has the required/specified/inferred distinction in terms, which is unchanged in types.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I believe strongly we should accept. There was no substantive dissenting commentary, just clarifying questions.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class="">Richard</div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" class="">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br class="">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>