That is a downside the Frege author had - one of the reasons he abandandoned this style of implementation. It is listed on the wiki.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jan-Willem Maessen <jmaes...@alum.mit.edu>wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones > <simo...@microsoft.com> 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 Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
