# ExercisedEvent.choice field **URL:** \ **Category:** App Development\ **Created:** [May 30, 2023, 12:46am UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/exercisedevent-choice-field/6607 "2023-05-30T00:46:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![asarpeshkar](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/asarpeshkar/32/1601_2.png) [@asarpeshkar](https://forum.canton.network/u/asarpeshkar)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2023, 12:46am UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/exercisedevent-choice-field/6607/1 "2023-05-30T00:46:16Z")
Which of the following does the ExercisedEvent.choice field hold: 1. The qualified Daml type name including package id 2. The qualified Daml type name sans the package id 3. The unqualified type name 4. Something else ---
**Author:** ![cocreature](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/cocreature/32/36_2.png) [@cocreature](https://forum.canton.network/u/cocreature)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2023, 6:46am UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/exercisedevent-choice-field/6607/2 "2023-05-30T06:46:45Z")
It is the choice name. That’s not technically related to the type name at all in Daml-LF. It’s just a single string that can have no relation to the type of the exercise arguments. However the daml compiler generates choices such that there is always a corresponding type as well for the exercise arguments. The choice name is then the unqualified type name. ---
**Author:** ![asarpeshkar](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/asarpeshkar/32/1601_2.png) [@asarpeshkar](https://forum.canton.network/u/asarpeshkar)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2023, 12:32pm UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/exercisedevent-choice-field/6607/3 "2023-05-30T12:32:17Z")
Thanks. I am a little confused at this bit though: “That’s not technically related to the type name at all in Daml-LF”. When you write `choice Foo`, it’s my understanding that in the compiler front end, this gets de-sugared into a record type holding the arguments and a type-class instance defining the behavior. Are you saying that the fact that the name generated for the former matches the name in the choice declaration is just a convention rather than a guarantee, because the Daml-LF spec mandates no such correspondence (and can’t because it doesn’t specify how Daml code is translated to Daml-LF)? ---
**Author:** ![cocreature](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/cocreature/32/36_2.png) [@cocreature](https://forum.canton.network/u/cocreature)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2023, 1:02pm UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/exercisedevent-choice-field/6607/4 "2023-05-30T13:02:15Z")
> When you write `choice Foo`, it’s my understanding that in the compiler front end, this gets de-sugared into a record type holding the arguments and a type-class instance defining the behavior. That’s still at the Daml level. Daml-LF has no typeclasses. In Daml-LF a template is defined (among other things) by a list of choices. Each of those choices has a name, a choice argument and the implementation (and some other stuff which doesn’t matter here). There is no relationship between the name and the choice argument in Daml-LF. You can use a completely different type, share types across choices (`Archive` actually does that), …. Damlc generates a new choice argument type for each choice and sets the choice name to the unqalified name of that type. ---
**Author:** ![asarpeshkar](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/asarpeshkar/32/1601_2.png) [@asarpeshkar](https://forum.canton.network/u/asarpeshkar)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2023, 2:09pm UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/exercisedevent-choice-field/6607/5 "2023-05-30T14:09:13Z")
Yes, that’s what’s what I was getting at when I wrote: > [@](#): > > Are you saying that the fact that the name generated for the former matches the name in the choice declaration is just a convention rather than a guarantee, because the Daml-LF spec mandates no such correspondence (and can’t because it doesn’t specify how Daml code is translated to Daml-LF)? The part I was missing is that the choice name _is_ part of the Daml-LF spec, so when you declare `choice Foo` you _are_ specifying the Daml-LF choice _name_ rather than the name of the associated type.