On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:16 PM, HASHIMOTO, Yusaku <nonow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for spamming, what I wanted to write is I think `has' has better > interface than other record packages in types. > > There are many libraries to write function "takes an record has Foo > and Bar and returns something." But writing type of the function is > still difficult. I can't write such types using HList or records > without reading documents. I think, using has, There's few effort to > write such types.
In which manner do you need to read less documentation to write: ] f :: Has Foo r => r -> ... Instead when using HList: ] f :: HasField Foo record fieldType => ... > I think `has' fits the needs of Haskellers who have the good habit of > writing a type of a function before its definition. What does this mean exactly in terms of the type inference possible? -- Adam _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
