Sure, but that's relying on the promise that you're passing it a valid BadFrog... Consider then:
deBadFrog $ BadFrogType (BadBar { badFoo = 1})
---------- Původní zpráva ----------
Od: John Wiegley <johnw@newartisans.com>
Datum: 31. 8. 2012
Předmět: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Over general types are too easy to make.>>>>> <timothyhobbs@seznam.cz> writes:
>> data BadFoo =
>> BadBar{
>> badFoo::Int} |
>> BadFrog{
>> badFrog::String,
>> badChicken::Int}
> This is fine, until we want to write a function that acts on Frogs but not
> on Bars. The best we can do is throw a runtime error when passed a Bar and
> not a Foo:
You can use wrapper types to solve this:
data BadBarType = BadBarType BadFoo
data BadFrogType = BadFrogType BadFoo
Now you can have:
deBadFrog :: BadFrogType -> String
And call it as:
deBadFrog $ BadFrogType (BadFrog { badFrog = "Hey", badChicken = 1})
Needless to say, you will have to create helper functions for creating Bars
and Frogs, and not allow your BadBar or BadFrog value constructors to be
visible outside your module.
John
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe