[clean-list] ADTs for fields in record types, please!

[Marco Kesseler]

Turns out one thing was wrong in my previous message (so now, I am 
talking to myself):

>This problem also exists in 
>solutions that employ type class constraints: the contraints provide 
>an interface on an _element_ of the object, not on the object 
>_itself_ (or is there a way?).

This is not true. The element IS the object in that case.

but the rest still doesn't sound completely off.

regards,
Marco