Proposal: Don't require users to use undefined

[Ian Lynagh]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 07:43:13AM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> 
> It's only a matter of time before we have explicit type applications.  Indeed, the principal difficulty is *syntax*.  (My "@" notation above might just work; because "@" is already unavailable as an operator.)

Drifting off-topic, but wouldn't we want to be able to use similar
syntax to bind types too? e.g.

    f ((Just @ t) x) = (Right @ String @ t) x

but @ is unavailable in patterns.


Thanks
Ian