[Haskell] Re: GADT: call for proper terminology

[Niklas Broberg]

On 10/11/06, oleg at pobox.com <oleg at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Niklas Broberg wrote:
> > Annotate the data type using a GADT:
> > data MyData a where
> >  MyCon :: MyData a
>
> The range of the data constructor MyCon is the entire type MyData a --
> so the above data type is the regular algebraic data type, and can be
> written just as
>         data MyData a = MyCon
> which, some say, makes the fact 'a' is phantom, and the overall intent
> clearer.
>
> One may hear phrases how generally awesome and indispensable GADT are;
> it is distressing to realize then that sometimes (often?) one is
> talking about regular algebraic data types, only in the `where'
> syntax.
>
> It helps to reduce confusion about the merits of various features and
> additions to Haskell if we use the term GADT exclusively for truly
> _generalized_ algebraic data types.

Right you are, I stand corrected.

/Niklas