Forall syntax

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

Dear Huggy people,

I've just noticed that Hugs uses slightly different
syntax than GHC for explicit for-alls in types.=20
In Hugs you say

	forall a,b,c. ...type....

In GHC you say

	forall a b c.  ...type...

It's a pity to have unnecessary syntactic differences.
Could we make them the same?

I'd like to suggest that GHC is more consistent with
the rest of Haskell.  At the term level we don't use
commas when we quantify:

	\ a b c -> ....    not    \ a,b,c -> .....

It's a pretty easy change to make.  What think you?
=09
Simon