You can get very close -- specifically, to within two extra characters --
to the brevity you're imagining without introducing any new extensions:
data Foo = Foo Int Int
deriving (Show)
f :: (Int, Int) -> Foo
f = uncurry Foo
g :: Int -> Int -> Foo
g = Foo
`f` is almost what you wanted. `g` will in many situations be terser.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 5:12 PM Daneel Yaitskov
Cafe,
There is a group of GHC extensions and complementary classes to make writing Haskell code a bit sweeter such as: - {} - Num (fromIntegral) - OverloadedStrings - IsString - OverloadedLists - IsList
So I have an inductive question - why there is no OverloadedTuples? I haven't found a discussion thread about this topic.
I could imagine following tuple syntax interpretation:
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedTuples #-}
data Foo = FooA Int String | FooB String Foo deriving (Show, Eq, IsTuple)
mkFoo :: Foo mkFoo = (1, "hello")
mkFoo2 :: Foo mkFoo = ("abc", (1, "hello"))
Sometimes expected type name is known without data constructor. So such expression is more concise.
--
Best regards, Daniil Iaitskov
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-- Jeff Brown | Jeffrey Benjamin Brown LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreybenjaminbrown | Github https://github.com/jeffreybenjaminbrown | Twitter https://twitter.com/carelogic | Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mejeff.younotjeff