[clean-list] translation of Haskell newtype?

[Brian Rogoff]

John van Groningen writes:
> Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > [... how to translate Haskell's newtype into Clean? ..] 
> The Clean compiler does not optimise this special case (a type with a
> single strict unary constructor). However the compiler attempts to optimise 
> a record with a single (strict) field, by unboxing such a record if it 
> appears as a strict field in (another) record, or as a strict argument of
> a constructor.
> Strict arguments and results of functions are also unboxed for records.
> 
> So it is better to translate newtype into a record with a strict field,
> instead of a constructor.
> 
> If you prefer to use a constructor like syntax, you could use a macro:
> 
> NewType a :== {new_type=a}

Thanks, that's a help. I take it that this won't work then if I want to
create new unboxed Integer or Real types which can be used in unboxed
arrays? 

Also, I find that some of the "Haskell" code I want to translate uses 
multi-parameter type classes with functional dependencies. Is there a 
workaround there too? If not, will we see them (or some similar
functionality) in a future Clean? I'm not whining much yet, since I 
don't real programming experience with this feature, I'm just playing with
some ideas from Haskell papers and I want to translate them to Clean,
however fundeps look like a really useful feature if you have MPTC. 

Thanks again!

-- Brian