Jacques Le Normand wrote:

> Assuming I understand this syntax, the following currently valid type
> definition would have two interpretations: [...]

Don't take the syntax from my 2008 CUG talk too seriously, it was just
a mock-up for the purpose of the talk.  Besides, it's too early for a
syntax war :-)

This said, Coq could be another source of syntactic inspiration: it
has several equivalent syntaxes for inductive type declarations (a
superset of GADTs), one Haskell-like, others more Caml-like.

- Xavier Leroy