infix type constructors

[Andrew J Bromage]

G'day all.

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:24:10AM -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

> I'm slowly getting around to this.   Design questions:
> 
> (A) I think it would be a good compromise to declare that operators
> like "+" are type *constructors* not type *variables*.  So 
> 	S+T
> would be a type.  That's slightly inconsistent with value variables,
> but it's jolly useful.  So only alphabetic things would be type
> variables.

While we're at it, could we have infix notation for type classes too?

	class (a * b) c | a b -> c where
	  (*) :: a -> b -> c

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage