On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Open questions: > > · Is String (at the kind level) a synonym for [Char]? I’m inclined > *not* to do this initially, because it would require us to have promoted > character literals too -- and the implementation of record labels as strings > of type-level cons-cells is not going to be efficient.
I'd say no, for the simple reason that we have regretted that the value level String type wasn't opaque, preventing us from replacing it with a more efficient implementation. I say make it opaque. -- Johan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
