On 2/28/12 3:57 AM, AntC wrote:
wren ng thornton<wren<at> freegeek.org> writes:
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,
That's what SORF does: the String Kind
and (2) make the Has class use that
kind rather than a type-level string.
No proposal is using a _type_-level string. Barney's confused you.
I was under the impression that all the working proposals were using the
Has class, a la:
someFunction :: Has "name" a => a -> Foo
someFunction x = ... (name x) ...
modulo the debate about the value-level syntax for records, and modulo
the debate about whether Has should be exposed to users or hidden inside
GHC. Is this no longer the case?
--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
