Type generalization ``order''?

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

| I suggest to include an appropriate hint in the report...
|=20
|  > In this subsection, we provide informal details of the=20
| type system.  > (Wadler and Blott [11] and Jones [6] discuss=20
| type and constructor classes,  > respectively, in more detail.)
|=20
|  I think this kind of outsourcing of essential parts of the =20
| language definition is not desirable.

The Report's description of the type system is not a proper
specification.
That is a flaw, but it is not one I can fix for the Revised H98 Report.

If, however, you can suggest some specific sentences that would help
to eliminate confusion, then please do suggest them.

Incidentally, Karl-Filip Faxen is working on a formal static semantics
for
Haskell.

Simon