Proposals and owners

[Simon Marlow]

On 08/08/2009 10:24, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 10:09:38AM +0100, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>> I thought that the intended semantics was supposed to be that the only
>> element is bottom (hence the proposal to add a related empty case
>> construct)?
>
> If that were the case, a compiler could legitimately discard any value
> of such a type, because it could be easily reconstructed.  I don't
> think that is what is intended.

Just in case this question is still open: an empty data declaration 
declares a type that has exactly zero constructors, not an abstract 
type.  What would it mean to define an abstract types?  Haskell only 
allows one definition of any given type.

Cheers,
	Simon