compactness in writing and also namespace pollution .. ;^)
Vasili
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 29 May 2008, at 11:46 PM, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
>
> Hello,
>>
>> I don't want to write kludgy Haskell code!
>>
>> typedef struct blah
>> {
>> int val1;
>>
>> union {
>>
>> int val2;
>>
>> struct {
>>
>> int val3;
>>
>> int val4;
>> }
>> }
>> } C_type;
>>
>> question: in Haskell, can I embed definition of the "union" inside of the
>> C typedef, i.e. recursion definition? Or must I have a separate definition
>> for the "union" which I "instantiate" inside the Haskell "typedef", i.e.
>> Haskell "data"?
>>
>
> Assuming all of these are semantic, you can say
>
> newtype HS_type = HS_type (Int, Either Int (Int, Int))
>
> But you lose named fields.
>
> It's hard to give other advice without some idea of /why/ you want to do
> something like this.
>
> jcc
>
>
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
