<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=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 3, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Eric Seidel <<a href="mailto:eric@seidel.io" class="">eric@seidel.io</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Why not say that `\ @a -> body` infers the type `forall a. ty` where `body :: ty`, and let unification handle the rest?</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">That's intriguingly simple. I haven't thought through the consequences of this fully, but it does seem plausible. I'm not ready to commit to that, but after a few minutes' focused thought, I can't see any problems with it. In any case, the proposal as written is forward-compatible with such a change, as doing what you say will allow only more programs: ones accepted by the proposal will remain accepted and with the same meanings.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Richard</div></body></html>