4 Jan
2006
4 Jan
'06
11:03 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:55:39AM -0500, David Roundy wrote:
Ah, good point, I hadn't thought about that. My proposal was to keep record updates which would indeed mean that we'd need to require that all "foo"s in a given data type have the same type. Which I don't think is a bad thing either... it just hadn't occurred to me.
The issue is with multiple data types that have the same field name, not the same field reused within a data type. for instance data Foo = Foo { foo :: Int } data Bar = Bar { foo :: Int } f x = x { foo = 4 } what type does f have? f :: Foo -> Foo or f :: Bar -> Bar ? John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈