[Haskell-cafe] Re: Non-atomic "atoms" for type-level programming

[Achim Schneider]

Tillmann Rendel <rendel at cs.au.dk> wrote:

> Hi Claus,
> 
> thanks for your elaborations. I'm still not convinced that a common
> name (e.g. TT :. Tr :. Tu :. Te) is a better interface than a common
> import (e.g. TypeLevel.Bool.True). In both cases, the authors of all
> modules have to actively collaborate, either to define common names,
> or to define common imports.
> 
> But I begin to see how type-level atoms could help to, e.g.,
> implement more advanced module system as type-level embedded DSLs in
> Haskell.
> 
> > Standard ML's answer to that kind of issue is type sharing.
> 
> Does type sharing help with making modules retroactively compatible?
> 

map (\i -> rot13 i) import Foo

-- 
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.