Quoth Arie Peterson, nevermore, > I also fear that the existing script does not handle types with more than > 256 constructors correctly. While uncommon, those are not unrealistic.
"256 constructors ought to be enough for anybody"? ;-) Seriously though, the thought of a type definition that heavyweight quite terrifies me. I would be interested to see if such a thing could be warranted and not more sensibly broken down into smaller (sets of) units. I like to think of types as being a bit like functions; and there is no way I would ever think about a function with 256+ parameters. For a start, my screen isn't wide enough for that kind of thing... But, well done to the people responsible for the binary stuff. It looks fab. D. -- Dougal Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://brokenhut.livejournal.com> Word attachments considered harmful. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
