From bdfb8e754737017c7f4a65d71464cb8878b65f10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: sof <unknown>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 08:35:02 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] [project @ 1999-05-05 08:35:02 by sof] Empty rec pattern
 test

---
 ghc/tests/deSugar/should_compile/ds044.hs |   36 +++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ghc/tests/deSugar/should_compile/ds044.hs b/ghc/tests/deSugar/should_compile/ds044.hs
index 15d7199..fddf194 100644
--- a/ghc/tests/deSugar/should_compile/ds044.hs
+++ b/ghc/tests/deSugar/should_compile/ds044.hs
@@ -1,30 +1,10 @@
-module Test where
+-- !!! Use of empty record patterns for constructors
+-- !!! that don't have any labelled fields. According
+-- !!! to the report, this isn't illegal.
+module ShouldCompile where
 
--- Strict field unpacking tests: compile with -O -funbox-strict-fields.
+data F = F Int Int
+       | G
 
--- test 1: simple unboxed int field
-data T = T !Int
-t (T i) = i + 1
-
--- test 2: mutual recursion (should back off from unboxing either field)
-data R = R !R
-data S = S !S
-
-r (R s) = s
-
--- test 3: multi-level unboxing
-data A = A Int !B Int
-data B = B !Int
-
-f = A 1 (B 2) 1
-g (A x (B y) z) = A x (B (y+2)) z
-h (A x (B y) z) = y + 2
-
--- test 4: flattening nested tuples
-data C = C !(Int,Int)
-j (C (a,b)) = a + b
-
--- test 5: polymorphism, multiple strict fields
-data D a b = D Int !(a,b) !(E Int)
-data E a = E a
-k (D a (b,c) (E d)) = a + b + c + d
+isF F{} = True
+isF _   = False
-- 
1.7.10.4