On Sun, 22 Dec 2013, Jacques Carette wrote:
Since the first is an iso, why not
pattern Single :: t a ~ [ a ]
or
pattern Single :: t a <-> [ a ]
? [I definitely prefer the first] Or is your 'type' for Single somehow
different than my guess?
the type of Single would be 'a -> [a]', as in:
in an expression context, if x :: a, then Single x :: [a]
in a pattern context, if Single x :: [a], then it binds x :: a
--
.--= ULLA! =-----------------.
\ http://gergo.erdi.hu \
`---= ge...@erdi.hu =-------'
The masses are asses.
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
