On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > [... good summary of the issues...] > But note what has happened: we have simply re-invented SORF. So the > conclusion is this: > > the only sensible way to implement FDR is using SORF.
An obvious question at this point: can records have unboxed fields? I'm worried a bit about the kinds that can appear in a has constraint: > A feature of SORF is that you can write functions like this > > k :: Has r "f" Int => r -> Int > k r = r.f + 1 I'm thinking out loud about the implementation implications here. -Jan-Willem Maessen _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
