In that hypothetical context, the field name wouldn't be usable as a function—at least without future Dependent Haskell.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:13:43PM -0400, David Feuer wrote:
> Does one field name for one datatype always refer to a field with the same
> type? Or is there some wacky extension that would allow things like
>
> data Foo
> = Bar { zoom :: Int }
> | Baz { zoom :: Char }
>
> I'm hoping I don't have to worry about the latter possibility....
Me too! Under such circumstances what would the type of
field-as-function be?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.