On Jul25, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> Dan Licata wrote:
> > On Jul25, apfelmus wrote:
> >> The point is to be
> >> able to define both zip and pairs with one and the same operator :< .
> >
> > There's actually a quite simple way of doing this. You make the view
> > type polymorphic, but not in
Dan Licata wrote:
> On Jul25, apfelmus wrote:
>> The point is to be
>> able to define both zip and pairs with one and the same operator :< .
>
> There's actually a quite simple way of doing this. You make the view
> type polymorphic, but not in the way you did:
>
>type Queue elt
>emp
