Am Samstag, 9. Februar 2008 23:46 schrieben Sie: > On Feb 9, 2008 4:08 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So what would (D1 :* D1) :* (D2 :* D2) mean then? > > Nothing. That value doesn't satisfy the Nat or Post class constraints > and should be taken into consideration. > > Why should :* be provided a meaning? it is an unavoidable syntactical > connective for all that I care. The meaning is provided by class > constraints and that's all that matter from the semantical point of > view.
I was just refering to Stefan’s argument that :* should be treated as a form of concatenation. From your point of view, it’s clear, of course. Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
