Thank you, for your reply, Dan! :) > You don't really need this inline in the record syntax, do you? In fact, that was the point. To enclose direct functional dependants into the record declaration. To achieve better pithiness - it's valuable, and the value grows exponentially with LOC (lines of code) count. :)
> sdtField3 sdt = f <$> sdtField1 <*> sdtField2 Doesn't look much better than my "under" function (t `under` f = \x y -> (x f) `t` (y f)). What did I miss? I believe, there are good reasons to use Control.Applicative for lots purposes, but unfortunately, yet haven't had time to try it in my practice. Belka -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Seeking-for-an-extention-%28functional-incapsulation%29-tp24856249p24856983.html Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe