Re: Representing Tuple types as products

Thomas Davie wrote:

fst :: α × β → α

even without Unicode we could allow fst :: a * b -> a like ML. But I'm not sure I like this. ((a,b),c) and (a,(b,c)) and (a,b,c) all feel distinct to me, but (a*b)*c, a*(b*c) and a*b*c feel the same. I could easily get used to it, but I doubt I'd use it as long as the old syntax remained available. -- Ben