J. Garrett Morris <jgmorris <at> cs.pdx.edu> writes: > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, AntC <anthony_clayden <at> clear.net.nz> wrote: > > I repeat: nobody is using a "type-level string". You (or someone) is > > making it up. > > It isn't clear where that idea came from. > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones > <simonpj <at> microsoft.com> wrote: > > It seems to me that there's only one essential missing language feature, > > which is appropriately-kinded type-level strings (and, ideally, the ability > > to reflect these strings back down to the value level). > > > > * Provide type-level string literals, so that “foo” :: String > > Huh.
Thank you Garrett, I feel suitably chided. So the 'culprit' is 'your man himself'. > > You may want to call your type-level-things-that-identify-fields > strings, labels, fieldLabels, or rumbledethumps, but surely that's not > the point of interest here? > > /g > Ah, but there _is_ a point of interest: under DORF I _must_ call my type-level- things-etc: **types** (or perhaps proxy **types**), Because they are only and exactly **types**. And because they are exactly **types** they come under usual namespace control. SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them because they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't control the namespace.) AntC _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users