i have thought about things like that, but the qualification Type.Constructor does
not seem particularly useful. you can achieve the same by using "_", e.g
data A = A_X | A_Y
data B = B_X | B_Y
alternatively (at least for non-recursilve datatypes) anonymous sums (ala TREX's records)
could work pretty well, but they are not in Haskell. details about those can probably be
found in Ben Gaster's thesis.
-iavor
Mark Carroll wrote:
I keep running into annoyance in having to name data constructors differently if they're for different types if they're in the same module or something. I wish that something like some Type.Constructor syntax worked in order to disambiguate. Or, better still, I have that problem with function names too (e.g. Data.List.union, Data.Set.union, IIRC) and it occurs to me that a lot of this can be resolved automatically because the types only make sense with one of the choices.
I'm not really proposing any changes; more, I'm wondering what others' thinking is about this sort of thing - what annoys them, how they get around it, etc.
-- Mark
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
