[Haskell-cafe] Can I get 'forall (a :: k). Typeable a => Dict (Typeable k)'?

[Tom Ellis]

On rereading maybe my question is a big ambiguous.  What I'm really
asking is "do people support the addition of (and see the value of) a
function of the following type?"

    forall (a :: k). Typeable a => Dict (Typable (a :: k))

It might require changes to GHC, I'm not sure.  I suppose the
new/proposed ghc-experimental package would be a good place for it to
start its life.

Tom

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 11:50:10AM +0100, Tom Ellis wrote:
> Morally I think that
> 
>     class Typeable (a :: k)
> 
> should have been
> 
>     class Typeable k => Typeable (a :: k)
> 
> If I'm wrong, could someone please elaborate why?  If I'm right,
> please read on ...
> 
> That would be a breaking change, but could we at least get
> 
>     kindable :: forall (a :: k). Typeable a => Dict (Typable (a :: k))
> 
> in the meantime?