wren ng thornton <wren <at> freegeek.org> writes: > > I'm not sure that I like the current proposals for how to control the > non/automatic-ness of polymorphism (for reasons I can spell out later, > if desired). But we definitely want to have something that's a bit more > cultured than simply making all record projectors polymorphic over records. >
Wren, I'm not sure if you've got it straight. (It's a subtle issue.) This is an area where SORF differs from DORF: - SORF can't hide the representation of a given field name (so a client program can 'guess' a field "identifier") That's because SORF is driven by String Kind, which cannot be scope controlled. - DORF uses (Proxy) types for (roughly) the same purpose as the String Kinds. But because they're types, you can control the scope, and keep the abstraction. AntC _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
