Am Freitag, 1. Februar 2008 05:11 schrieben Sie: > Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: > > Well, the representation (D1,D2,D9) might be considered more readable. > > It has the disadvantage of a fixed maximum size for the numbers. Which > > takes me to a point I had already considered some time ago: Wouldn’t it > > be good if we had just a type > > > > data Pair val1 val2 = Pair val1 val2 > > > > and if then (val1,val2,…,valn) would just be syntactic sugar for this: > > > > val1 `Pair` (val2 `Pair` (…(valn `Pair` ())…)) > > I've thought of that too.. besides the asymmetry, the presence of > _|_/seq makes them actually not equivalent though, unfortunately > > ~Isaac
With Ryan’s proposal (using strictness annotations) the new representation should be equivalent to the old one. Or am I missing something? Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
