<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>On 8 août 2015, at 14:40, Oliver Charles <<a href="mailto:ollie@ocharles.org.uk">ollie@ocharles.org.uk</a>> wrote:</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: GentiumBasic; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">There is reasonable reasoning here, but what you suggest breaks almost all Haskell code that has ever been written. Sounds like an idea better suited to the design of a new language :)</p></blockquote><div>Maybe adding a language pragma or having both would avoid break any code?</div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: GentiumBasic; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Also, i think you need the newtype/data distinction as I believe they are operationally different wrt laziness.</p></blockquote>Maybe keeping the `newtype` keyword would suffice?</div><div><br></div><div>Alexey.</div><br></body></html>