On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:14 , Stefan Monnier wrote: > > >>>> You seem to write 12 as 1 :+ 2 instead of () :+ 1 :+ 2. But I > >>>> think, the > >>>> latter representation should probably be prefered. > >>>> (...) > > How 'bout treating :+ as similar to `append' rather than similar to > > `cons'? > > Basically treat :+ as taking 2 numbers (rather than a number and > > a digit). > > Dumb questions department: why not define e.g. D'0 .. D'9 as () :* > 0 .. () :* 9? Programmers then get D'1 :* 2, but the library sees > () :* 1 :* 2.
Do you remember that they talk about types D0, D1, and so on? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
