8 Sep
2004
8 Sep
'04
5:46 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:27:23PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The ML orthodoxy says that it's essential to give sharing constraints by name, not by position. If every module must be parameterised by every type it may wish to share, modules might get a tremendous number of type parameters, and matching them by position isn't robust. I think that would be the primary criticism from a programming point of view. I have no experience of how difficult this would turn out to be in practice.
How about named fields in type constructors? Something like Haskell's records but at type level. Seems like a fun extension ;) Best regards, Tom -- .signature: Too many levels of symbolic links