Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
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?
adding the strictness annotation seems to make them equivalent, yes I
agree (I hadn't seen that post when I wrote that reply)
~Isaac
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
