On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:44:06AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Yes, I suppose you could have another keyword.
>
> In fact, a keyword is unnecessary, as long as classes are identified
> with the 'class' keyword, there's no need to tag type constructors too.
> This is the most minimal extension, and avoids both the confusion of
> referring to synonyms and datatypes in the same way, and taking a new
> keyword.
I assume we will also follow the suggestion on the page that the
presence of a subordinate list distinguishes a type from a value
constructor. that would allow us to uniquely identify everything needing
only 'class' in export lists
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
