As formulated on the wiki page, the "narrow issue" is a problem without a good
solution. The reason the community rejected TDNR is because it's basically
polymorphism done wrong. Since we already have polymorphism done right, why
would we want it?
The right way to deal with records is first to agree a mechanism for writing a
context which means
"a is a datatype with a field named n of type b"
then give the selector n the type
"a is a datatype with a field named n of type b" => n :: a -> b
There is no reason why this shouldn't be used with the current syntax (although
it might clash with more advanced features like first-class labels).
Barney.
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
