Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Freitag, 1. Februar 2008 05:11 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Well, the representation (D1,D2,D9) might be considered more readable. It has the disadvantage of a fixed maximum size for the numbers. Which takes me to a point I had already considered some time ago: Wouldn’t it be good if we had just a type
data Pair val1 val2 = Pair val1 val2
and if then (val1,val2,…,valn) would just be syntactic sugar for this:
val1 `Pair` (val2 `Pair` (…(valn `Pair` ())…)) I've thought of that too.. besides the asymmetry, the presence of _|_/seq makes them actually not equivalent though, unfortunately
~Isaac
With Ryan’s proposal (using strictness annotations) the new representation should be equivalent to the old one. Or am I missing something?
adding the strictness annotation seems to make them equivalent, yes I agree (I hadn't seen that post when I wrote that reply) ~Isaac