On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:27:23PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > The ML orthodoxy says that it's essential to give sharing constraints by > name, not by position. If every module must be parameterised by every > type it may wish to share, modules might get a tremendous number of type > parameters, and matching them by position isn't robust. I think that > would be the primary criticism from a programming point of view. I have > no experience of how difficult this would turn out to be in practice.
How about named fields in type constructors? Something like Haskell's records but at type level. Seems like a fun extension ;) Best regards, Tom -- .signature: Too many levels of symbolic links _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
