Records in Haskell

[wren ng thornton]

On 2/28/12 3:57 AM, AntC wrote:
> wren ng thornton<wren<at>  freegeek.org>  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,
~wren