...this seemed not to make it to the mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't valid)...
-- Hal Daume III "Computer science is no more about computers | [EMAIL PROTECTED] than astronomy is about telescopes." -Dijkstra | www.isi.edu/~hdaume ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:33:50 -0800 (PST) From: Hal Daume III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kirsten Chevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Constructors in GHC Hi, It finally makes sense now :) > We could make this more consistent in two ways. Alternative (A): One > way would be to make it clearer that $wMkT was the real constructor: > > data T = $wMkT Int Int > MkT p = case p of (x,y) -> $wMkT x y > f x y = $wMkT x y > g t = case t of $wMkT x y -> x > > Alternative (B): The other alternative would be to make the original > Haskell constructors into the $w things: > > data T = MkT Int Int > $wMkT p = case p of (x,y) -> MkT x y > f x y = MkT x y > g t = case t of MkT x y -> x As someone using external core, I can resoundly say: I don't really care :). I would probably prefer (B), as you seem to, but it's not a strong preference. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
