On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:45:49AM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote: > 2008/4/2 porrifolius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > (7) ideally required permissions would appear (and accumulate) in > > type signatures via inference so application code knows which are > > required and type checker can reject static/dynamic role constraint > > violations > > If you mean what I think you mean by "dynamic", that these are runtime > permissions, then you're not going to get the type checker to check > them... of course. What did you mean by dynamic?
With GADTs you can certainly get pretty easy compile-time type checking of dynamic constraints. The catch is that GADTs aren't properly integrated with type classes, and this sort of permissions problem may not be expressible without class constraints, in which case the system may require olegish code complexity. At the simplest (and stupidest) level, one could define data CanReadA data CanReadB -- etc data HavePermission perms where HaveAPerm :: HavePermission CanReadA HaveBPerm :: HavePermission CanReadB and if you then restricted access to the constructors of HavePermission, you could write code like data RestrictedData permrequired a = Data a -- constructor obviously not exported, or you'd lose any safety readRestrictedData :: HavePermission perm -> RestrictedData perm a -> a and now if you export readRestrictedData only, then only folks with the proper permissions could access the data (and this could be done at runtime). But this is far from an elegant or satisfactory (or complete) solution. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
