[Haskell-cafe] Type Directed Name Resolution

[wren ng thornton]

On 11/11/10 8:54 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> I remind readers once again that in SML record selectors *don't* clash with
> names of functions.  I am not concerned here to argue either for or against
> SML-style records and their selectors, only to point out that wanting
> *record fields* whose significance depends on the record they select from
> is *NOT* the same thing as TDNR in principle, so that arguments for that
> don't even come close to being arguments for TDNR as such.

My sentiments exactly. If people were to argue for SML-esque record 
selectors and the row-polymorphism that goes with them, I might be 
willing to throw in with that cause (or I might not, depending on the 
alternatives). However, that proposal is *very* different than the TDNR 
proposal. With row-polymorphism there's a decent chance of not shooting 
yourself in the face; there's a well-understood type theory that goes 
along with it, and it's been used in practice in other languages with a 
type system fairly similar to Haskell's. With TDNR, however, the 
situation is quite different.

-- 
Live well,
~wren