Records in Haskell

wren ng thornton wren at
Thu Mar 1 04:51:52 CET 2012

On 2/28/12 3:57 AM, AntC wrote:
> wren ng thornton<wren<at>>  writes:
>> I'm not sure it's a good proposal, but it seems like the only way to
>> handle this issue is to (1) introduce a new kind for
>> semantically-oriented field names,
> That's what SORF does: the String Kind
>> and (2) make the Has class use that
>> kind rather than a type-level string.
> No proposal is using a _type_-level string. Barney's confused you.

I was under the impression that all the working proposals were using the 
Has class, a la:

     someFunction :: Has "name" a => a -> Foo
     someFunction x = ... (name x) ...

modulo the debate about the value-level syntax for records, and modulo 
the debate about whether Has should be exposed to users or hidden inside 
GHC. Is this no longer the case?

Live well,

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list