On 2017-03-24 22:50, MarLinn wrote:
My question is then: What's the best thing to use for "x", Void or ()? […] An alernative I've been considering is actually to create a Foo' type which actually does eliminate the i parameter
This is only a partial answer, but why not role your own i? And why not define Foo' in terms of Foo and whatever you end up using?
Not sure what you mean by "role your own i" ... but Foo' as a newtype of Foo might actually make a lot of sense. I think I'm *mostly* using type-class methods on the Foo, so I can just "propagate" those trivially. I hadn't considered that idea, thanks! (I'm sure it'll work out, but I'll at least try it to see how it works with the rest of the code.)
data ThereIsNoIOnlyZuul -- intentionally left blank
type Foo' e n = Foo ThereIsNoIOnlyZuul e n -- extra types included for clarity
Well, Void *is* ThereIsNoIOnlyZuul, at least AFAICT? :) Regards,