On 08/08/2009 10:24, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 10:09:38AM +0100, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
I thought that the intended semantics was supposed to be that the only
element is bottom (hence the proposal to add a related empty case
construct)?
If that were the case, a compiler could legitimately discard any value
of such a type, because it could be easily reconstructed. I don't
think that is what is intended.
Just in case this question is still open: an empty data declaration
declares a type that has exactly zero constructors, not an abstract
type. What would it mean to define an abstract types? Haskell only
allows one definition of any given type.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
