neil.mitchell.2 at credit-suisse.com
Mon Sep 15 12:22:46 EDT 2008
> Ah -- you used an *existential* there! Yes,
> existentially-bound type variables are rigid. They stand for
> themselves, as it were.
> How should this be clarified?
I'd leave it. I wanted a simple set of rules stating "_if_ you provide
the following type signatures your code _will_ compile", which is what
you currently provide, albeit I interpreted 'result' slightly
differently. If people want to learn where these type signatures can be
omitted (because a type is already rigid) people can follow the papers,
or learn by trial and error.
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users