Removing MonadFail from Monad

[Andreas Abel]

On 17.12.2013 00:32, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> * David Luposchainsky <dluposchainsky at googlemail.com> [2013-12-16 23:57:19+0100]
>>> I don't understand the restriction "is defined via data" since I am not
>>> aware of defining constructors outside of data or with something other
>>> than the data keyword.  Please clarify.
>>
>> I meant "data and not newtype". If "Only" is a newtype data constructor,
>> the pattern is irrefutable by design, is it not?
>
> One notable case of one-constructor types defined not via data is
> tuples. You certainly don't want warnings for that!

Should not tuple types be understood as

   data (,) a b = (,) a b
   data (,,) a b c = (,,) a b c

making them one-constructor types?!

> Regarding newtypes vs data, I'm not so sure it should make a difference.
> It's customary to make one-field types newtypes, and then, if one
> realizes that more fields are needed, turn them into proper data types.

I agree.  What operational semantics is concerned (this mean the 
execution model of Haskell in the programmer's mind),

   newtype = data

Cheers,
Andreas

-- 
Andreas Abel  <><      Du bist der geliebte Mensch.