On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 08:09:37AM -0400, Andrew Wagner wrote: > Err, technically, aren't functions and constructors mutually exclusive? So > if something is a function, it's, by definition, not a constructor?
I guess what Eugene Kirpichov meant was that not being a function (and being a constructor) isn't sufficient, it must also be a constructor of the correct type, e.g. f Nothing = ... f (x:xs) = ... isn't correct, however it pattern matches on constructors only. -- Felipe. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
