On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 08:31:04PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
>
> The problem with this approach is that different labels do not have
> different representations at the value level. In my record system, I use
> label definitions like the following ones:
>
> data MyName1 = MyName1
>
> data MyName2 = MyName2
Instead of
class Has (r :: *) (f :: String) (t :: *) where
(as on the wiki), would it be possible to have something like
class Has (r :: *) (ft :: *) (f :: ft) (t :: *) where
(where ft stands for field type)?
This could also solve the representation-hiding problem:
foo.field would use the string "field" as the field name, as in the
proposal on the wiki page.
But foo.Field (capital first letter) would use the constructor Field
that is in scope. If you don't want to export the field getter then
capitalise the first letter and don't export the constructor.
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
