> I interpreted Evan's question as "why can't you have newtypes with > multiple fields?" -- i.e., newtype X = X A B C -- and that's the > question I was answering. But maybe I misunderstood.
Well, the question was both, and "strictness" answers both. Thanks for the clarification. I should have realized that of course (,) is an ADT just like all the rest. I guess that means that 'data X = X Y Z' is always preferable to 'newtype X = X (Y, Z)' since the latter is just like the former but with some extra typing. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
