On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:12:29PM +0000, Dougal Stanton wrote:
Quoth Arie Peterson, nevermore,
I also fear that the existing script does not handle types with more than 256 constructors correctly. While uncommon, those are not unrealistic.
"256 constructors ought to be enough for anybody"? ;-)
Seriously though, the thought of a type definition that heavyweight quite terrifies me.
Think about simple enumerations, eg. for keywords in a programming language: data Keyword = IF | THEN | ELSE | BEGIN | END ... http://www.cs.vu.nl/grammars/cobol/: Number of keywords: 420 Perhaps such examples could be treated differently, but I think it's better to have a more general solution and not have to assume unneccesary restrictions on user's datatypes.
I would be interested to see if such a thing could be warranted and not more sensibly broken down into smaller (sets of) units.
I think in the above example the most sensible thing is to have all the keywords in the same datatype. Best regards Tomasz