23 Jun
2004
23 Jun
'04
7:40 a.m.
What you are suggesting - whilst it seems reasonable requires a fundamental change to the type system. At the moment [] signifies an empty list of type 'a' ... what you are suggesting requires [] to have a different type from [a]... This means a simple case statement : case a of (a:as) -> [] -> would now not type because everything on the LHS of the cases must be the same type. Infact I don't see how it could be any other way... 'a' has a type call it [a]... how could [] be any other type? Keean.