> The code seems a bit simpler, too. Do you really think so? To me replacing a GADT by class and instance declarations seems the wrong way round. We should not forget that the DT in GADT stands for `data type'. One could certainly argue that the gist of functional programming is to define a collection of data types and functions that operate on these types. The fact that with GADTs constructors can have more general types just allows us to use the functional design pattern more often (freeing us from the need or temptation to resort to type class hackery with multiple parameter type classes, undecidable instances, functional dependencies etc).
Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
