Type generalization ``order''?
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  and Jones  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