Tommy Thorn wrote:
>
> Koen Claessen:
> > This brings us to another issue. Doesn't the following definition look
> > a bit awkward?
> >
> > R{ x = x }
>
> Definitely wierd. The left and right-hand side denotes two different
> things, which AFAIK is the only place where `=' behaves like this.
> Wouldn't `<-' have been a better choice? `<-' bindings are never
> recursive, thus `R{ x <- x } is less surprising, as the two x's can't
> be the same.
What about using constructor syntax: R{ X x } ?
Not to be taken too seriously...
- Andreas
