I'm finding myself dealing with several large abstract syntax trees
that are very similar in nature. The constructor names would be the
same or one type may be a small extension of another.
This is something that I wouldn't worry about with Lisp, for example,
as I would create a bunch of
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:23:47 +0100
Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm finding myself dealing with several large abstract syntax trees
that are very similar in nature. The constructor names would be the
same or one type may be a small extension of another.
This is something that I
Magnus Jonsson wrote:
I have the same problem too when using Haskell. The more I try to
enforce static guarantees the more I get lots of datatypes that are
similar except for one or two constructors. The best way I have found
to avoid this is to simply give up on some of the static guarantees
On 4/24/07, Jacques Carette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Ocaml, you can frequently use polymorphic variants to get the same
effect.
Which means that if you are willing to do enough type-class-hackery, it
should, in principle, be possible to do the same in Haskell. But it
sure isn't as
Josef Svenningsson wrote:
On 4/24/07, Jacques Carette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Ocaml, you can frequently use polymorphic variants to get the same
effect.
Which means that if you are willing to do enough type-class-hackery, it
should, in principle, be possible to do the same in Haskell. But
