Matthew Farkas-Dyck strake888 at gmail.com writes:
I think you don't want all those type vars in your record decls -- but only
vars for the mutatable types, like this:
type R c = { X ::. Int, Y::. String, Z ::. c, ... }
Then you don't need a Quasifunctor instance for every field,
On 03/03/2012, AntC anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz wrote:
Apart from the Quasifunctor bit, I think you'll find your proposal is a rather
cut-down version of DORF, just using different syntactic sugar.
(Oh, and with the arguments to Has in a different order, just to be
confusing.)
Not so. I
Hello all.
I wrote a new proposal for the Haskell record system. It can be found
at http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/TypeIndexedRecords
Records are indexed by arbitrary Haskell types. Scope is controlled as
scope of key types. No fieldLabel declarations needed (as in DORF).
Matthew Farkas-Dyck strake888 at gmail.com writes:
Hello all.
I wrote a new proposal for the Haskell record system. It can be found
at http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/TypeIndexedRecords
Records are indexed by arbitrary Haskell types. Scope is controlled as
scope of key
