Unit unboxed tuples
wren ng thornton
wren at freegeek.org
Mon Jan 9 05:46:12 CET 2012
On 12/23/11 8:34 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> More uniform! If you the singleton-unboxed-tuple data constructor in source code, as a function, you'd write (\x -> (# x #)). In a pattern, or applied, you'd write (# x #).
Shouldn't (# T #) be identical to T?
I know that a putative (T) would be different from T because it would
introduce an additional bottom, but I don't think that would apply to
the unboxed case. Or is there something in the semantics of unboxed
tuples that I'm missing?
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users