8 Jan
2012
8 Jan
'12
11:46 p.m.
On 12/23/11 8:34 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
More uniform! If you the singleton-unboxed-tuple data constructor in source code, as a function, you'd write (\x -> (# x #)). In a pattern, or applied, you'd write (# x #).
Shouldn't (# T #) be identical to T? I know that a putative (T) would be different from T because it would introduce an additional bottom, but I don't think that would apply to the unboxed case. Or is there something in the semantics of unboxed tuples that I'm missing? -- Live well, ~wren