On Wednesday 04 May 2005 01:32, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: > This doesn't work in Haskell because Haskell types aren't constructed in > this way. It's harder to prove properties of types in Haskell (and fewer > properties actually hold).
Could you explain why this is so? Or rather, what the appropriate technique is in Haskell? I assume it has to do with laziness but I have no idea how it enters the picture. Ben _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
