<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Oh, thanks for clarification, I misunderstood you at first. If the proposal is about improving the type system so that HKTs are expressible (or more easily expressible) than I definitely support it :)</div> <br> <div id="bloop_sign_1450354652679463936" class="bloop_sign"></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">On 17 December 2015 at 13:16:39, Will Fancher (<a href="mailto:willfancher38@gmail.com">willfancher38@gmail.com</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div><div></div><div>> As long as the underlying theory is not widely adopted, I think HKTs should be provided by third-party libraries (like swiftz).
<br>
<br>I wholeheartedly agree that protocols like Monad and Functor shouldn't be in the standard library. I really think they need their own external package.
<br>
<br>But HKTs can't be provided by third party libraries! HKTs are a language level feature! HKTs aren't a collection of types we wish were implemented. HKTs are the language level construct that allows for generic types to be re-parameterized. An HKT proposal would NOT insist that Monad and co. be written into the standard library. It would simply insist that HKTs become physically possible, which they currently are not.</div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>