...it's also not the same...for instance, in this new version you cannot say:
> foo = bar { thing = Nothing } which you could say given: > data Foo = Foo String { thing :: Maybe String } I'd guess that this is disallowed just for consistency. I think it would just be too many rules to keep track of something with a combination of multiple named fields and multiple unnamed fields. I don't know though... You can always give them names like "_foo1" etc., in which case ghc probably won't warn about them, as is the case with methods whose names begin with underscores... - Hal -- Hal Daume III | [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Arrest this man, he talks in maths." | www.isi.edu/~hdaume On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Steffen Mazanek wrote: > Ok, I had missed something: > I can write instead: > > data Type = TCon String (Maybe String) ... > > and declare a function lmtc > > lmtc (TCon _ x) = x > ... > > But why not allow syntactic sugar? > > Sorry, > Steffen > > > -- > Steffen Mazanek - www.steffen-mazanek.de - GPG: 791F DCB3 > > Haskell, that's where I just curry until fail, unwords > any error, drop all undefined, maybe break, otherwise > in sequence span isControl and take max $, id: (d:[]) > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell > _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell