Hi, I have to second that. I recently "fell" over that problem when writing instances for certain kinds of tuples. In libraries, such as "tuple" there is a special 'OneTuple' constructor but I'd really appreciate a more uniform fix -- but don't know of one either...
Gruss, Christian * Ganesh Sittampalam <gan...@earth.li> [23.12.2011 15:39]: > On 23/12/2011 13:46, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:34:49PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > >> > >> Arguments Boxed Unboxed > >> 3 ( , , ) (# , , #) > >> 2 ( , ) (# , #) > >> 1 > >> 0 () (# #) > >> > >> Simple, uniform. > > > > Uniform horizontally, but strange vertically! > > It's worth mentioning that if you want to write code that's generic over > tuples in some way, the absence of a case for singletons is actually a > bit annoying - you end up adding something like a One constructor to > paper over the gap. But I can't think of any nice syntax for that case > either. > > Cheers, > > Ganesh > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
pgpzcDYozzaqd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
