Language extension proposal

[Ralf Hinze]

> If we could only figure out a good syntax for
> (optional) type application, it would deal rather nicely with many of
> these cases.  Trouble is, '<..>' gets confused with comparisons.  And
> when there are multiple foralls, it's not obvious what order to supply
> the type parameters.

What about 
	mantissa (| Double |) + 4 ?
Order: left to right as they appear in the quantifier or else (more
heavy-weight) several special brackets (curried foralls)
	... sequence (| \ b . ST b MyState |) (| Int |) ...
So we can write
	... sequence ...                            all foralls are implicit
	... sequence (| \ b . ST b MyState |) ...   the second forall is implicit
but not
	... sequence (| Int |) ...                  the first forall is implicit

Cheers, Ralf