Hi,
Am Montag, dem 16.05.2022 um 19:09 + schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> Hi all,
>
> On a project I'm working on, I wish to declare something like
>
> data Rec = MkRec { field :: forall a. SomeConstraint a => ... }
>
> where the ... contains no mention of `a`.
>
> Even withÂ
> On May 16, 2022, at 3:45 PM, Sebastian Graf wrote:
>
> MkRec { field = \@a -> ... }
Hm -- perhaps you're right. I may have gotten myself all worked up over
nothing. I was worried that unification would get confused, not sure that the
`a`s match up. But I now think I was wrong -- it should
do the right thing. Indeed, I interpret your
proposed `field @a = ...` as much the same.
Sebastian
-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Richard Eisenberg"
An: "Erdi, Gergo via ghc-devs"
Gesendet: 16.05.2022 21:09:33
Betreff: ambiguous record field (but not *that* kind of
Hi all,
On a project I'm working on, I wish to declare something like
data Rec = MkRec { field :: forall a. SomeConstraint a => ... }
where the ... contains no mention of `a`.
Even with https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/448
