On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > I can only repeat myself, that the field being updated (and > type-converted) is only one of many, and all other fields should > carry the same value in the updated structure as in the original. > There is no good way to write this at the moment. If there were no > type-conversion, a field update would work just great. But because > of the conversion, one is forced to use explicit construction.
If there is some field which appears in many constructors but the type is independent from the other ones I would think about bundling all constructors which share the same type. The sub-alternatives could be put into another type. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe