Changes between Version 14 and Version 15 of Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecordFields/ImplementorsView


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 29, 2012 1:17:16 AM (2 years ago)
Author:
AntC
Comment:

Add example import to demo namespacing control

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecordFields/ImplementorsView

    v14 v15  
    248248=== Representation hiding/import/export === 
    249249 
    250 See the discussion under [wiki:Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecordFields#ApplicationProgrammersview Application Programmer's view] and [wiki:Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecordFields/NoMonoRecordFields No Mono Record Fields]. When import/exporting do we need to also export the Proxy_type? If not exported, update syntax cannot be desuggarred to use it.) 
     250See the discussion under [wiki:Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecordFields#ImportExportandRepresentationhiding Application Programmer's view Import/Export]  and [wiki:Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecordFields/NoMonoRecordFields No Mono Record Fields]. When import/exporting do we need to also export the Proxy_type? If not exported, update syntax cannot be desuggarred to use it.) 
     251 
     252See also the attached `DORF Prototype Importing 29Feb2012.lhs`, which selectively imports some fieldLabels, and declares local versions of others. This shows that within a single record decl: 
     253          1. You can create fields that share Labels with imports. 
     254          2. You can create fields that don't share, even with the same Label name. 
     255                 (That is, the module system continues to control the namespace.) 
     256          3. You can prevent using the wrong field selector with the wrong record type, 
     257                 even if they have the same Label name. 
     258 
     259(Apologies for labouring the point: it seems to be widely mis-understood, and it's a point of difference compared to SORF.) 
    251260 
    252261=== Should application programmers declare instances for `Has/set`? ===