[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #281: Visible "forall" in terms; rec: accept

[Eric Seidel]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021, at 13:56, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> 2. We would like some type arguments to be visible and some to be 
> invisible. This is the nub of the motivation for #281.

Possibly a slight tangent, but if I were to replace every occurrence of "visible" with "required" and "invisible" with "optional", would that be a valid way of reading the discussion around visibility? For some reason the terminology has always been a bit confusing.

Veering off a bit further, if the above substitution is valid, would visibility give us a formalism to deal with optional *value* arguments? It's always bothered me that OCaml has optional/named parameters but Haskell does not.