> Simon Peyton Jones microsoft.com> writes:
>
Hi Simon, I don't think there's an 'issue' in the sense fundeps
can achieve something that type-families can't (or v.v.).
It's more about elegance and ergonomics of the code to achieve it.
(I'll try to avoid a question of judgment shading into a mat
>
> The labelled "birthday = ..." approach seems
> tantalisingly close to data constructors:
>( Name "Fred", Birthday $ Date 28 4 2016 )
>
> Which takes us (perhaps) to HLIst-style
> Type-Indexed Products.
> How could they fit with ORF?
> Perhaps introduce an implicit label spelled same as the
> Adam Gundry well-typed.com> writes:
> ...
>
> P.S. If you have any thoughts on the interaction between ORF and
> encodings of anonymous records, I'd be interested to hear them.
Are you sure you want to open up that question? ;-)
Nikita's record library has certainly given food for thought.
Be
| > I have been vacillating between type families and fundeps for the ORF
| > classes. I hadn't fully appreciated this point about overlap, but I
| > think it is a reason to prefer fundeps, which is the direction in
| > which I'm leaning. I'd be grateful for feedback on this issue though!
...
> > On 26/04/16 09:20, AntC wrote:
> > There's an intriguing comment here wrt anonymous records: ...
>
> I'm afraid the sentence on the wiki page is slightly misleading, ...
> with the change to functional dependencies,
> the overlapping instances solution works rather nicely,
> in that it works
Hi AntC,
On 26/04/16 09:20, AntC wrote:
> There's an intriguing comment here wrt anonymous records:
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields/
> MagicClasses#Designextension:anonymousrecords
> (End of the section)
>
> "... this doesn't quite work, because the two inst
