> Edward Kmett <ekmett <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Let me take a couple of minutes to summarize how the lens approach tackles the composition problem today without requiring confusing changes in the lexical structure of the language.
Thank you Edward, I do find the lens approach absolutely formidable. And I have tried to read the (plentiful) documentation. But I haven't seen a really, really simple example that shows the correspondence with H98 records and fields -- as simple as Adam's example in the wiki. (And this message from you doesn't achieve that either. Sorry, but tl;dr, and there isn't even a record decl in it.) Does the lens approach meet SPJ's criteria of: * It is the smallest increment I can come up with that meaningfully addresses the #1 pain point (the inability to re-use the same field name in different records). * It is backward-compatible. [I note BTW that as the "Plan" currently stands, the '.field' postfix pseudo-operator doesn't rate too high on backward-compatible.] I do think that freeing up the name space by not auto-generating a record- type-bound field selector will help some of the naming work-rounds in the lens TH. > ... You say: > > template-haskell functions for lens try to tackle the SORF/DORF-like aspects. These are what Greg Weber was referring to in that earlier email. > errm I didn't see an email from Greg(?) AntC _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users