Re: Bug in PAKCS data inspection ¿?

From: Bernd Brassel <>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:35:04 +0100

Juan Carlos González Moreno schrieb:

> But if there is several examples that
> show me that is better to
> understand that the "a" is a new constructor, please send me to study
> them.

Essentially, it is better to understand "a" as a new constructor, as it
stands at a place where no type variable might stand due to the rules of
Curry syntax.

Do you also think that in the following program

module M where

data D = M E

there should be an error, because "M" is the name of a module? And how about

data A = A

which would also be an error if there was not the concept of different
name spaces.

In general there are the following name spaces:

- module names
- constructor/function names
- type constructor names

Did I forget anything? By definition, different name spaces may contain
the same name. Do you think that concept is not useful?

> Sorry, but if 1) is considered valid then i don't understand nothing
> about how it is
> implemented the type system declaration, because b is not previously
> declared as data type, and
> accept this line it is equivalent for me to the following (extended
> declaration):

I agree and I think the comment about existential types
was not so very helpful for the discussion.

curry mailing list
Received on Di Okt 30 2007 - 10:48:07 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Di Dez 05 2023 - 07:15:09 CET