Hi Tom, +1
> There's a little bit of bikeshedding that needs to happen (e.g. is "hiding > (Foo > (..))" sufficient to hide the type Foo and not just its constructors), but are > people +1 on this? I've frequently wanted this behavior. I would be surprised if 'Foo(..)' would mean in this case something different, so yes, the type Foo should be hidden too. Greetings, Daniel _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
