Comments on: Mirrored Lenses http://comonad.com/reader/2012/mirrored-lenses/ types, (co)monads, substructural logic Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:18:06 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Edward Kmett http://comonad.com/reader/2012/mirrored-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-105589 Edward Kmett Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:23:36 +0000 http://comonad.com/reader/?p=600#comment-105589 Honestly, I'm pretty far behind in the record debate. Mostly because the signal to noise ratio was bad enough that I just gave up on it. In practice the use of lenses is mostly orthogonal to SORF/DORF. This does largely address the use of something like . as a field accessor though, because foo^.bar.baz.quux does exactly what an OOP developer would expect. Honestly, I’m pretty far behind in the record debate. Mostly because the signal to noise ratio was bad enough that I just gave up on it. In practice the use of lenses is mostly orthogonal to SORF/DORF.

This does largely address the use of something like . as a field accessor though, because foo^.bar.baz.quux does exactly what an OOP developer would expect.

]]> By: Ein http://comonad.com/reader/2012/mirrored-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-105586 Ein Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:41:52 +0000 http://comonad.com/reader/?p=600#comment-105586 You mentioned at the end that record reform proposals should consider these concepts. Have you thought about what those considerations might be for the current record namespace initiative (e.g. the proposals on http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records, or even just SORF/DORF)? You mentioned at the end that record reform proposals should consider these concepts. Have you thought about what those considerations might be for the current record namespace initiative (e.g. the proposals on http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records, or even just SORF/DORF)?

]]>