[Haskell] Applicative translucent functors in Haskell
ccshan at post.harvard.edu
Wed Sep 8 14:02:23 EDT 2004
On 2004-09-08T16:27:23+0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> You might want to show it to Derek Dreyer and other ML module experts.
I'm trying; I'm trying. (:
> The ML orthodoxy says that it's essential to give sharing constraints by
> name, not by position. If every module must be parameterised by every
> type it may wish to share, modules might get a tremendous number of type
> parameters, and matching them by position isn't robust. I think that
> would be the primary criticism from a programming point of view. I have
> no experience of how difficult this would turn out to be in practice.
On 2004-09-08T19:46:55+0200, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> How about named fields in type constructors? Something like Haskell's
> records but at type level. Seems like a fun extension ;)
I do believe that the potential exponential blowup in expressing sharing
constraints is an issue that needs to be addressed in practice, and
that named fields in type constructors (in other words, record kinds)
would be the main part of the solution. Section 5.1 of my paper
(http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~ccshan/xlate/) has some discussion and
pseudocode. Comments are greatly appreciated of course!
Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
"[Programming] Languages shape the way we think, or don't." -- Eric Naggum
2004-09-21 International Day of Peace http://www.un.org/events/peaceday/
Rich Zitola for Massachusetts State Senate (Worcester and Middlesex District)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell/attachments/20040908/65540d48/attachment.bin
More information about the Haskell