[Haskell] GADT: call for proper terminology

[Lennart Augustsson]

On Oct 11, 2006, at 03:58 , Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

> Hello oleg,
>
> Wednesday, October 11, 2006, 6:12:23 AM, you wrote:
>
>>> Annotate the data type using a GADT:
>>> data MyData a where
>>>  MyCon :: MyData a
>
>> 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.
>
> imho, the error was inventing new syntax for GADTs instead of just  
> adding
> type guards to the old one

Well, I think the GADT type definition syntax is the syntax data type  
definitions should have had from the start.  Too bad we didn't  
realize it 15 years ago.

	-- Lennart