> > I'm not sure it's a good proposal, but it seems like the only way to handle > this issue is to (1) introduce a new kind for semantically-oriented field > names, and (2) make the Has class use that kind rather than a type-level > string.
The second half of my message showed exactly how to handle the problem, using nothing more than existing Haskel features (and SORF for the record fields). The point is that the extra complexity of DORF is completely unnecessary. Barney. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
