Forall syntax

[Andy Gill]

Simon, et. al,

forall tends to be used with one argument, hence the reason its not
really biting right now. If no-one objects, I'll change it this week
at some point, to match GHC.  The "lambda does not use comma" seems
convincing to me.

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: hugs-bugs-admin@haskell.org [mailto:hugs-bugs-admin@haskell.org]On
Behalf Of Simon Peyton-Jones
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 12:16 PM
To: hugs-bugs@haskell.org
Cc: simonpj@microsoft.com
Subject: Forall syntax


Dear Huggy people,

I've just noticed that Hugs uses slightly different
syntax than GHC for explicit for-alls in types. 
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?
	
Simon

_______________________________________________
Hugs-Bugs mailing list
Hugs-Bugs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-bugs