On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Jim Apple wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > GADTs don't change anything (at least, not the last time I checked).
>
> GHC (in HEAD, at least) eliminates this wart for any datatype declared
> with GADT syntax.
>
> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Jim Apple wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > GADTs don't change anything (at least, not the last time I checked).
>
> GHC (in HEAD, at least) eliminates this wart for any datatype declared
> with GADT syntax.
>
> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist
On 7/9/07, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GADTs don't change anything (at least, not the last time I checked).
GHC (in HEAD, at least) eliminates this wart for any datatype declared
with GADT syntax.
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/current/docs/users_guide/data-type-extensions.html#g
On Monday 09 July 2007, Daniil Elovkov wrote:
> Hello
>
> In the archives of haskell-cafe I found a mention of constraints on
> datatypes as a mis-feature of Haskell. In particular, that they're not
> propagated well. Can someone elaborate on that?
>
> Also, are they still considered a mis-feature
Hello
In the archives of haskell-cafe I found a mention of constraints on
datatypes as a mis-feature of Haskell. In particular, that they're not
propagated well. Can someone elaborate on that?
Also, are they still considered a mis-feature with the emergence of GADTs ?
If I have
data GADT a whe
