What you are suggesting - whilst it seems reasonable requires
a fundamental change to the type system. At the moment []
signifies an empty list of type 'a' ... what you are suggesting
requires [] to have a different type from [a]... This means
a simple case statement :
case a of
(a:as) ->
[] ->
would now not type because everything on the LHS of the cases must
be the same type.
Infact I don't see how it could be any other way... 'a' has a type
call it [a]... how could [] be any other type?
Keean.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
