You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Initially I thought that Haskell's overloaded record extension meant I could e.g., put a field called "eqs" in many records, as is customary in AQL Java. And it can, but the actual call sites of these overloaded projection functions appeared not to use type information to resolve which package/namespace to use, and so I started giving them ad hoc names rather than write prefixes (e.g., Instance, Schema) to disambiguate. Anyway, the goal of this issue is to normalize the naming scheme for the record components.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Initially I thought that Haskell's overloaded record extension meant I could e.g., put a field called "eqs" in many records, as is customary in AQL Java. And it can, but the actual call sites of these overloaded projection functions appeared not to use type information to resolve which package/namespace to use, and so I started giving them ad hoc names rather than write prefixes (e.g., Instance, Schema) to disambiguate. Anyway, the goal of this issue is to normalize the naming scheme for the record components.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: