You don't really need this inline in the record syntax, do you? In fact, that was the point. To enclose direct functional dependants into
sdtField3 sdt = f <$> sdtField1 <*> sdtField2 Doesn't look much better than my "under" function (t `under` f = \x y -> (x f) `t` (y f)). What did I miss? I believe, there are good reasons to use Control.Applicative for lots
Thank you, for your reply, Dan! :) the record declaration. To achieve better pithiness - it's valuable, and the value grows exponentially with LOC (lines of code) count. :) purposes, but unfortunately, yet haven't had time to try it in my practice. Belka -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Seeking-for-an-extention-%28functional-incapsulation%2... Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.