Context Navigation

COmpareSORF

v4	v5
1	1
2		= DORF -- comparison to SORF =
	2	= DORF -- comparison to SORF (and to TDNR) =
3	3
4	4	This is a brief point-by-point comparison to
…	…
19	19	In contrast: "The [SORF] proposal ... doesn't allow label names to be scoped: if one module internally uses "field" as a label name then another module can break the abstraction by using the same string "field"." SPJ goes on to discuss a work-round which he sees as "ugly", and concludes "we need scoped instances". DORF does not need any innovations around instances or type inference.
20	20
21		=== Should `get` have a Proxy argument? ===
	21	'''Wild afterthought:'''
	22	* DORF __does__ need to apply module control/representation hiding to the field selector function.
	23	* But if that's controlled, perhaps it doesn't need to control the Proxy type(?)
	24	* (In fact, the Proxy type is a bit of an annoyance, with a shadowy existence just out of sight from the application programmer, except for the need to export/import it.)
	25	* Perhaps we could use Kinds instead, and take advantage of the inability to control their scope:
	26	* Kinds could be just used, not declared.
	27	* They could be `String` Kinds or some more abstract/compact/hidden representation.
	28
	29
	30	=== Should `get` have a Proxy argument? (and should `set` ?) ===
22	31
23	32	"This choice does not make a major difference either way." [SPJ]. DORF likewise doesn't care. The prototype does use a Proxy argument, because it's implemented using types not Kinds, and GHC doesn't (yet) have type application.