Original-Via: uk.ac.ic.doc; Thu, 5 Dec 91 11:23:27 GMT Simon's post about exporting type synonyms rekindled a nagging question about Haskell. Why do we have both "type" and "data" keywords? It seems like redundant syntactic clutter to me. Why not just use "type" for both? I think "data" is an odd keyword for defining a type anyway. It is always obvious which kind of type is being defined (from whether there is a constructor or not) and the restriction about no recursive synonyms without an intervening ADT is easily restated as "recursion must involve a constructor". Actually, even "type" is redundant since it is always obvious whether you are defining a type or a value (from the case of the first letter). Maybe I'm being a bit too minimalist here :-). Denis Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __o I don't really love computers H558A Imperial College London _ \<,_ I just say that to get them +44 (71) 589 5111 x5064/x7531 (_)/ (_) into bed with me. T Pratchet
