>I understand you're arguing that type constructors should work the same
way.
It is just i think: the difference with int*int and (int*int) seems (to me)
a hack (but i am peraps an extremist ;-) )

>Well, maybe they should have.
I also do not know. Peraps another solution would be that
#type t= A of int*int
#let a=(1,2) in (A a)
works by automatically transforming "a": tag*(int*int) to tag*int*int...but
peraps it is too hard for just some little cases and it takes many memory
for the copy (ok, I can write let (a1,a2)=(1,2) in (A (a1,a2)) but it takes
much times...;-) )

>I'm not sure I'd like it if that was changed now, however.  Working code
wouldn't cease to work- it'd just be
>less memory efficient.  But you'd always have the extra reference, even if
>you didn't need it.

I understand your problem and i have no good solution :-(

Good night !
FG