Re: Records in Haskell

On 2/29/12 10:51 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:

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?

Ah, it seems the exact nature of the Has class is still being debated. I suppose my concern places me in the pro-DORF (or at least anti-SORF) camp. Carry on :) -- Live well, ~wren