[Haskell-cafe] Class-like features for explicit arguments

[Ertugrul Söylemez]

> Isn't your associated type here more like a dependent record field/
> existential that we can kinda expose?

Not quite.  There is still a clear distinction between type and value
level.  You cannot refer to an AT on the value level or to a member
value on the type level.


> This does seem to veer into first class module territory.  Especially
> wrt needing first class types in a fashion.

I think formally there is little difference between a powerful record
system and a first-class module system.  However, even in a
non-dependent language a first class module could still expect a value
argument.  A record type couldn't do this without essentially making the
language dependent on the way.


> Have you had a chance to peruse the Andreas Rossberg 1ml paper on
> embedding first class modules into f omega that has been circulating?
> Perhaps there are ideas There that could be adapted. Especially since
> core is an augmented f omega

I haven't read it, sorry.  My proposal should conform to the current
core language, as it's mostly just a syntax transformation.  The only
new semantics would be defaults.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20150425/d968624e/attachment.sig>