I've always considered Unit to just be a nullary tuple. This intuition has
never steered me wrong, and it seems that Template Haskell is making the same
assumption. If there's some reason that this conflation of ideas is wrong, I
would be eager to know -- th-desugar makes this assumption in seve
Hi Jose and Richard,
haskell-src-meta has Language.Haskell.Meta.Utils.normalizeT which can
help with making code "treat the two constructs equivalently", though
I imagine using th-desugar instead will make that process harder to
mess up.
Adam
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Richard Eisenberg
> I can't answer about "expected behavior", but I can say that those
> two constructions should be considered identical by the $(…) splice
> construct. For better or worse, Template Haskell often offers
> multiple ways of encoding the same source Haskell phrase, and any
> code that processes Templa
I can't answer about "expected behavior", but I can say that those two
constructions should be considered identical by the $(…) splice construct. For
better or worse, Template Haskell often offers multiple ways of encoding the
same source Haskell phrase, and any code that processes Template Hask
Hi,
I am positive about the following situation, but I can't find any
concrete answer on the Web. Can anyone confirm this ?
In template-haskell-2.7.0, the following quote
[t| () |]
appears as a (ConT name), where "name" is the name for unit. However,
in template-haskell-2.8.0, the same quote
