Phil Wadler wrote:
> Mark suggests that Mu types might be better that recursive type
> synonyms. I think of them as pretty much equivalent, and it's
> simply a question of whether one makes the `mu' syntax accessible
> to the user. One certainly needs `mu' or an equivalent internally
>
[I hear cries of Haskell 2]
Phil Wadler writes:
> The suggestion is:
>
> Remove the restriction that type synonym
> declarations must not be recursive.
>
> [...]
>
> The obvious way to go is for someone to implement it first, to
> make sure it's not difficult. Mark Jones, have you
Mark suggests that Mu types might be better that recursive type
synonyms. I think of them as pretty much equivalent, and it's
simply a question of whether one makes the `mu' syntax accessible
to the user. One certainly needs `mu' or an equivalent internally
for doing the typechecking. The adva
