Re: ADTs in Haskell

[Lennart Augustsson]

> What, precisely, is the definition of
> a constructor strict in a specified field?  In particular, how do
> you define it, and implement it, if that field has a functional
> type?  Remember, in Haskell function types are unlifted, so we
> should have  (\_ -> bottom) = bottom.
Well, if you go for strict polymorphic constructors (or seq)
you'd have to have a lifted function type.  That would be fine
with me.  I know that's a bit nasty, but I'm willing to live with it.

        -- Lennart