No, because the pattern matching semantics are different. Matching on the constructor *must* force the contents to maintain type safety. It's really strict data with the newtype optimization, rather than a bona fide newtype.
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Ben Gamari <[email protected]> wrote: > David Feuer <[email protected]> writes: > >> Not really. It's really just the newtype optimization, although it's not a >> newtype. > > Ahh, I see. Yes, you are right. I was being silly. > > However, in this case wouldn't it make more sense to just call it a newtype? > > Cheers, > > - Ben _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
