S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
Conceptually, I think what I really want is the data structure
equivalent of type inference. Just as I don't want to be forced to
declare my function types, I don't want to be forced to declare my
data types. The field labels I use should be enough to define the
shape of my type. The reason this is really important is that if
hlists contain hlists, the type declarations can get really really messy
Separately, I would really like hrecords not to have order dependency.
It seems strange to me that (Foo .*. Bar .*. HNil) is a different type
from (Bar .*. Foo .*. HNil).
These particular two issues : type inference based on record 'shape' and
records without order dependency, (ignoring the SYB part of the problem
for the moment) are both addressed in the following haskell records
proposal (and, undoubtedly, others)
http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Haskell/records.html
Jules
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
