Records in Haskell
wren ng thornton
wren at freegeek.org
Thu Mar 1 04:51:52 CET 2012
On 2/28/12 3:57 AM, AntC wrote:
> wren ng thornton<wren<at> freegeek.org> writes:
>> I'm not sure it's a good proposal, but it seems like the only way to
>> handle this issue is to (1) introduce a new kind for
>> semantically-oriented field names,
> That's what SORF does: the String Kind
>> and (2) make the Has class use that
>> kind rather than a type-level string.
> No proposal is using a _type_-level string. Barney's confused you.
I was under the impression that all the working proposals were using the
Has class, a la:
someFunction :: Has "name" a => a -> Foo
someFunction x = ... (name x) ...
modulo the debate about the value-level syntax for records, and modulo
the debate about whether Has should be exposed to users or hidden inside
GHC. Is this no longer the case?
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users