Re: Records in Haskell

On 2/28/12 3:57 AM, AntC wrote:

wren ng thornton writes:

...

I'm not sure it's a good proposal, but it seems like the only way to handle this issue is to (1) introduce a new kind for semantically-oriented field names,

That's what SORF does: the String Kind

...

and (2) make the Has class use that kind rather than a type-level string.

No proposal is using a _type_-level string. Barney's confused you.

I was under the impression that all the working proposals were using the Has class, a la: someFunction :: Has "name" a => a -> Foo someFunction x = ... (name x) ... modulo the debate about the value-level syntax for records, and modulo the debate about whether Has should be exposed to users or hidden inside GHC. Is this no longer the case? -- Live well, ~wren