J. Garrett Morris <jgmorris <at> cs.pdx.edu> writes: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:58 PM, AntC <anthony_clayden <at> clear.net.nz> wrote: > > SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them > > because they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't control the > > namespace.) > > Nah, they have kinds, and they don't take parameters, so they're > probably types. Whether you prefer that "foo" in module A mean the same > thing as "foo" in module B is entirely up to you; ... > /g >
It's about representation hiding: - I don't want the importer to even know I have field "foo", - but they can use my field "bar" Or perhaps: - I don't want the importer to update field "foo" - but they can read "foo", and they can update "bar" (This is especially to support using records to emulate OO, where we want abstraction/'separation of concerns'.) If the importer (either maliciously or by accident) creates their own record with a "foo" field, I specifically _don't_ want them to try sharing my hidden "foo". AntC _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
