On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Luke Palmer <lrpal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:34 AM, John Lask <jvl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/11/2010 5:21 PM, Ketil Malde wrote: >>> >>> "Richard O'Keefe"<o...@cs.otago.ac.nz> writes: >>> >>>>> it is often desirable to have the same field names >>>>> for many records in the same module. >>> >> >> very much so, this is currently possible, with the restriction that >> the field names must have the same type modulo the record it is selecting >> on. >> >> what is disirable is that this restriction be lifted. > > Haskell has a wonderful history of being careful to consider both > sides of a restriction. One one hand, a restriction can make it > harder to write something you want to write. On the other hand, a > restriction can provide properties that make it easy to transform and > reason about your program. > > So I am not ready to accept your claim that this is desirable without > further justification.
Sorry for the self-reply. I just want to clarify, I didn't mean to write off your well-thought-out message with this simple comment. I was just drawing attention to the duality of restrictions. Luke _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe