J. Garrett Morris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, AntC
wrote:
I repeat: nobody is using a "type-level string". You (or someone) is making it up.
It isn't clear where that idea came from.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote: It seems to me that there's only one essential missing language feature, which is appropriately-kinded type-level strings (and, ideally, the ability to reflect these strings back down to the value level).
* Provide type-level string literals, so that “foo” :: String
Huh.
Thank you Garrett, I feel suitably chided. So the 'culprit' is 'your man himself'.
You may want to call your type-level-things-that-identify-fields strings, labels, fieldLabels, or rumbledethumps, but surely that's not the point of interest here?
/g
Ah, but there _is_ a point of interest: under DORF I _must_ call my type-level- things-etc: **types** (or perhaps proxy **types**), Because they are only and exactly **types**. And because they are exactly **types** they come under usual namespace control. SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them because they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't control the namespace.) AntC