Re: [Haskell-cafe] type inference and named fields

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

I can only repeat myself, that the field being updated (and type-converted) is only one of many, and all other fields should carry the same value in the updated structure as in the original. There is no good way to write this at the moment. If there were no type-conversion, a field update would work just great. But because of the conversion, one is forced to use explicit construction.

If there is some field which appears in many constructors but the type is independent from the other ones I would think about bundling all constructors which share the same type. The sub-alternatives could be put into another type.