On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:16 PM, HASHIMOTO, Yusaku
Sorry for spamming, what I wanted to write is I think `has' has better interface than other record packages in types.
There are many libraries to write function "takes an record has Foo and Bar and returns something." But writing type of the function is still difficult. I can't write such types using HList or records without reading documents. I think, using has, There's few effort to write such types.
In which manner do you need to read less documentation to write: ] f :: Has Foo r => r -> ... Instead when using HList: ] f :: HasField Foo record fieldType => ...
I think `has' fits the needs of Haskellers who have the good habit of writing a type of a function before its definition.
What does this mean exactly in terms of the type inference possible? -- Adam