Type generalization ``order''?

Simon Peyton-Jones simonpj@microsoft.com
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:35:13 -0700

| I suggest to include an appropriate hint in the report...
|  > In this subsection, we provide informal details of the=20
| type system.  > (Wadler and Blott [11] and Jones [6] discuss=20
| type and constructor classes,  > respectively, in more detail.)
|  I think this kind of outsourcing of essential parts of the =20
| language definition is not desirable.

The Report's description of the type system is not a proper
That is a flaw, but it is not one I can fix for the Revised H98 Report.

If, however, you can suggest some specific sentences that would help
to eliminate confusion, then please do suggest them.

Incidentally, Karl-Filip Faxen is working on a formal static semantics