Re: Haskell 1.3 (newtype)

[Ryszard Kubiak]

In a recent message Phil Wadler argues:

> ...
> Make newtype equivalent to a datatype with one strict constructor.
> Smaller language, more equivalences, simpler semantics, simpler
> implementation.  An all around win!

I strongly agree with Phil and suggest that because of the equivalences
the extra syntax for 'newtype' is simply omitted. It doesn't make sense
to have syntax with so little semantic significance.

Regards, Rysiek