>> There are many libraries to write function "takes an record has Foo
>> and Bar and returns something." But writing type of the function is
>> still difficult. I can't write such types using HList or records
>> without reading documents. I think, using has, There's few effort to
>> write such types.
>
> In which manner do you need to read less documentation to write:
>
> ] f :: Has Foo r => r -> ...
>
> Instead when using HList:
>
> ] f :: HasField Foo record fieldType => ...
HasField only gives projection function (hLookupByLabel), but Has
gives projection, injection and modification function.
If I want to write a generic function injecting a value into field Foo
in a record by HList, I should read documentation more.
>> I think `has' fits the needs of Haskellers who have the good habit of
>> writing a type of a function before its definition.
>
> What does this mean exactly in terms of the type inference possible?
Probably, yes. it's still fragile due to some reasons e.g. the
behavior of UndecidableInstances language extension.
> import Data.Has
> data Foo = Foo; type instance TypeOf Foo = Int
> data Bar = Bar; type instance TypeOf Bar = Int
> f r = (Foo ^. r) + (Bar ^. r)
*Main> :t f
f :: forall s.
(Contains (Labelled Foo Int) s, Contains (Labelled Bar Int) s) =>
s -> TypeOf Foo
-nwn
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
