Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But (a) is not a lifted version of a, whereas (a,b) is a lifted > version of the a b product. > So it's not consistent, and thereby wrong.
Well, we can't represent the unlifted product in Haskell, right? You have to use some constructor. So if we just say we are using tuples to represent unlifted products, what's so bad about that? At present, tupling doesn't lift values into anything, since we don't have generic operations on tuples. The last two messages in this thread suggests this has more to do with the internals of Haskell than they do with consistent semantics -- so I am perhaps missing the point. -- _jsn _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
