flippa at flippac.org
Mon Sep 15 09:11:05 EDT 2008
[sent to list as well this time]
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 14:00 +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Ah -- you used an *existential* there! Yes, existentially-bound type variables are rigid. They stand for themselves, as it were.
> That resolves the mystery -- but it existentials admittedly introduce a new complication
> How should this be clarified?
For me, "existentially-bound variables are rigid" works well enough.
They're a somewhat non-obvious case of 'coming from an annotation'
though, and it does warrant mention.
Philippa Cowderoy <flippa at flippac.org>
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users