On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Just a quick point, which I'm sure you realise, but static typing gives > you guarantees about the runnability of > a program that dynamic typing breaks... You can do almost anything you > would want to use dynamic types for > using a sufficently broad algebraic data type. For instance you could > create a type encompassing all the built > in types and then simply use a list of this type to achieve what you > need. Obviously the more specialised the type > you use the less cases you have to deal with, and so there is less > chance of making an error. I'm not sure I get you but I was thinking of staticly typed extensible records, like in T-Rex. In fact, I need less than that. I think that not declared records, like in SML are sufficient for me. Best regards, Nicolas > > Regards, > Keean Schupke. > > Nicolas Oury wrote: > > > > > Hello, is there something like extensible records in ghc? > > > > >Are you wanting something like Hugs' T-Rex or did you have something > > >else in mind? > > > > > > Hello, > > For what I understand of T-Rex it is what I wait. > > > > I need something that can allow to use records without declaring their > > type first and that can be extended by creating a new records with the > > same contents plus one or less one. > > > > Best regards, > > Nicolas > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
