On 11/11/10 8:54 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
I remind readers once again that in SML record selectors *don't* clash with names of functions. I am not concerned here to argue either for or against SML-style records and their selectors, only to point out that wanting *record fields* whose significance depends on the record they select from is *NOT* the same thing as TDNR in principle, so that arguments for that don't even come close to being arguments for TDNR as such.
My sentiments exactly. If people were to argue for SML-esque record selectors and the row-polymorphism that goes with them, I might be willing to throw in with that cause (or I might not, depending on the alternatives). However, that proposal is *very* different than the TDNR proposal. With row-polymorphism there's a decent chance of not shooting yourself in the face; there's a well-understood type theory that goes along with it, and it's been used in practice in other languages with a type system fairly similar to Haskell's. With TDNR, however, the situation is quite different.
-- Live well, ~wren _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
